Tough Love - Can A Game Be Too Hard?

Thanks to Slate for its article discussing the excessive difficulty inherent in some videogames. The writer argues: "Some [games] are so freakishly, spoon-bendingly difficult that they take 10 hours of solid play before you've even begun to master the basics... I usually discard them in frustration after a couple of hours and wonder: What's the point? What adult has the time to master this stuff? Could it ever be worth it?" He continues: "The latest test of this thesis is Tecmo's new Ninja Gaiden, a game so punishing that even some hard-core players fear picking it up." Although the piece concludes: "Just because a game is hard doesn't mean it'll have a payoff", what games have you played that are insanely tricky to master?

Comments

Difficult games

[PhotoBoy]

The only problem I have with difficult games is that now I have to be a "grown up" and go to work everyday I don't get much time to play games.

As little as 3 years ago it would have been fine for me to devote lots of time to a game like Ninja Gaiden, but now 30 minutes could be considered to be a big gaming session for me. Which is one of the reasons I like the quick save in PC games, true it makes a game very easy but it also means I can stop playing when I choose to and resume without having to play large sections of the game again to get back to where I was before.

With Ninja Gaiden if I die it often means replaying 10 minutes worth of stuff I've done before just to get back to the bit I'm having trouble with, which can be frustrating, it can also mean my entire gaming session is spent replaying the same part of the game over and over without making any new progress. I'd probably never see beyond level 1 of most games if we still lived in the days of consoles without memory cards. I lost count of how many hours it took to get to the end of Super Ghouls and Ghosts before being told to go through the whole game again by the princess because she'd dropped her bracelet.

I saw the other day that the creator of Ninja Gaiden wants to make the sequel just as hard, despite people's complaints. I admire the guy for sticking to his design ethics but I think he might out off a lot of potential buyers by doing this.

Two kinds of hard

[Apreche]

There are two kinds of hard. One is good, the other is not.

The first kind is the kind you get in a Zelda game. You need to beat a puzzle to proceed. The puzzle is a real mind bender. You sit there thinking and thinking, maybe even dying, and eventually you figure it out. These are good since your lack of skill keeps you from continuing. Also like in a space shooter, if you keep dying at a boss its because your twitch reflexes and button pressing isn't up to snuff, so you don't continue.

What is bad is when arbitrary information prevents you from continuing. For example a Resident Evil type game. Let's say you get to a point where you are completely stuck. There is no puzzle solving or skill shooting or anything like that which prevents you from going forth. It's simply that you don't know that widget X goes in thing Y. The only way to know is to read a FAQ or try everyting. This is stupid and bad game design. If you want someone to figure something out, it has to be in puzzle or riddle form. Don't just give the player stuff and force them to try every combination of places and things with no logic behind it. If there is no thinking or hand moving skill involved its not worth my time.

However, in games with the correct type of difficulty, crank it up all the way. I remember when saying you beat a game was a badge of honor. Sometimes you couldn't even repeat the feat. Seeing the ends of games, however crappy, was the best thing ever. We have to go back to those days. *cough* Silver Surfer *cough*

Re:Two kinds of hard

[Torgo's Pizza]

I've just got to tweak your post a bit. The "two kinds of hard" that you are describing are actually two schools of game design; logic and reflex. The degree to which they are implemented is difficulty.

Logic puzzles can be extremely simple to just bizarrely difficult. An example of simple logic in a game is a dark room with a switch on the wall. Turn on the switch you have light. Insane logic would be to coat the switch with peanut butter then hold out a ferral squirrel with tongs so the rabid rodent flips the switch. Reflex puzzles mostly involve timing and key combinations. Occasionally they can be mixed with simple logic puzzles to focus in on key areas, such as a glowing spot on an enemy to show their weak spot.

A game will fail when it fails to scale appropriately for the player or the logic used to arrive at an answer is actually in fact, illogical. You are absolutely correct when you state that often a player has to "brute force" his way to a solution. Proper game design shouldn't give an answer away, but instead offer enough clues along the way to offer a solution. Infocom games, while extremely difficult, were possible to solve because enough context and clues were given to solve any puzzle. Riven was horrible for just dumping a puzzle in front of a player and walking away without any explaination.

In the end, you want the player to use his reasoning and increased knowledge of button skill to solve the challenges in the game. It's often too easy to toss out a kick to the crotch to a player by using insane logic or immpossible foes. Difficulty comes through design, not through tricked up foes and puzzles.

Difficulty vs. challenge

[Airwall]

There's a big difference between something which is just "difficult" - e.g. loads of baddies, psychic enemy AI, and something which is a real challenge.

My main criterion is, when I've been killed by something/crashed into a wall/allowed the coloured blocks to stack up too high, whether I'm thinking, "Yeesh, not again! How was I supposed to see that coming?", or "My fault - should have been more catious".

I know it was insanely successful, but I got seriously pissed off with MOHAA because of the sniper sections. Everyone I've spoken to who played it agreed that the only way through was:

i) Walk into new area
ii) Wait to be shot
iii) Try and work out, as you die, where the sniper was
iv) Load save
v) Walk into area, already pointing the right direction and waste sniper.

This is a waste of my time. I want to feel that if I die, it's my fault, and that I could have done better. I don't want to end up feeling that the game designers just deliberately wasted me. As an example of what I do like, I'd suggest Deus Ex and (to a lesser extent) its sequel. I got blown away plenty of times in both games (on "hard" setting) but each time I knew what I should have been doing differently, and learnt a lesson that helped with the rest of the game.

Lack of Time - Need better learning curves

[Robmonster]

echoing an earlier poster I find that my complete lack of time makes games that others probably find easy much harder for me.

While kids are able to devote a lot of time to games, and eventually become very proficient at them, I find that my adult life has far too many other commitments.

Don't get me wrong, I love gaming, but if a game is initially difficult then I cannot justify spending what little gaming time I get playing through that game. If these things had better learning curves that gradually introduced mew skills and methods then I would be able to play more, as I would feel that I would achieve more at each sitting. Instead I opt for games that I find myself able to play, and thus enjoy my limited time more.

If anyone is looking for a bite-sized game that fits into a hectic adult life easily, but can be expanded to take up as much time as you have then click the link in my sig.

RM

Re:Conversely

[Forkenhoppen]

I think maybe a line has to be drawn here, because you're confusing two different concepts.

If you go to college or university, you're expected to work hard because you're getting an education. This is where the hard work and perseverence is applicable, because you're paying for an education.

With gaming, it's totally different. You're paying for entertainment, and the expectation here is that you're going to be entertained. Difficulty and rewards versus how much you put in shouldn't be dictated by how skilled you are. Sure, there are basic skill requirements for any game, but the objective isn't to weed out those unfit for, what, the sequel? I've paid for my game, I've paid to be entertained, I don't need to be weeded out because I can't afford to put in 4 hours a day trying to figure out how to get past [insert stupid crazy button press combo/timing crud here].

In case you're wondering why I'm making the comparison to education, it comes to mind because I knew a guy who looked at it from the other angle; I'm paying for my education, why don't they pass me? Needless to say, the guy was a bit of a moron.. (If you're reading, bud, it's because you were PLAYING ZELDA WHEN YOU SHOULD'VE BEEN STUDYING.)

Just, um, clearing that up.

Lets add a jumping puzzle!

[GoofyBoy]

HalfLife was the perfect game until you got to the end and there was the jumping puzzle from hell. The audio and visual effects and different creatures created the alien feeling. The jumping puzzles added nothing to this.

To this day I still have no idea what the level designers where thinking. It had nothing to do with the rest of the game, it was boring and tedious (Woops you were 1 second off, reload and repeat).

Today, Far Cry has point saves (You can only save at certain points). Why would they do this on a PC game? Why do game designers force you to play something in one sitting?

When its fun, its a challenge. When its not, it gets me out of the "game" mode and start thinking about how poor the level designers were when they had to resort to making things difficult which has nothing to do with the game or having fun.

Re:Lets add a jumping puzzle!

[Alkaiser]

The jumping puzzle is the sign of a extraordinarily uncreative and horrible game designer.

Have you played Tron 2.0? Fantastic...up until the game decides it's going to be the jumping puzzle from hell. Timed jumping moving platform puzzles! Jumping moving platform switch states puzzles! The last 6 to 8 levels just kept throwing annoying jumping sequence after another at you.

I've never met a gamer who is proud of the jumping puzzles they've defeated, or anyone who's said, "Oh man, that jumping section of game X, that was great!"

My least favorite jumping puzzles are the ones they put in RPGs...when your character is twice as high as the obstacle they're trying to jump over, and yet, still has to execute a perfect game of hopscotch, or start again from the beginning.

sure, but...

[hak1du]

Some [games] are so freakishly, spoon-bendingly difficult that they take 10 hours of solid play before you've even begun to master the basics

True. But that isn't necessarily a problem: it takes longer than that to master the basics of classic games like chess or Go, games that have deservedly survived for a long time.

The problem with many computer games lies in the specifics that makes them difficult. For many games, the difficulty is just in poorly designed menu structures and other non-gameplay related issues.

And there is no point in learning a difficult games if it's not replayable and doesn't look like it's going to become a classic.

Effort in games should be small compared to the expected life of the game for you, and users should be able to feel that it is an intellectual challenge that they can work out, not just memorization of arbitrary decisions made by the game designers.

Re:Asked and answered.

[Finuvir]

Tic Tac Toe (aka Noughts and Crosses) loses all interest once you realise that it's impossible to win, you just wait for you oponent to lose. That is, you can't force a win, you just hope for a mistake.

Easy mode should actually be easy

[cjmnews]

Easy mode in most games is what I would consider to be "normal". What EASY mode should be is so easy that only an idiot would fail.

Easy mode should give you too much gold so you can buy all the equipment you want. Monsters should be simple to defeat. Timed traps and tricks should allow you to walk through unharmed, or be really slow. Easy mode should have lots of hints.

Easy mode should allow a user to see the end of the game without having to struggle. It should teach you the basics of the button sequences to get around in the game.

Easy mode should NOT force a user to play a section 20-30 times just to get past it (LOTR TTT : Cave Troll vs. Aragorn). It should not be so hard that you give up (LOTR TTT : Helms Deep Courtyard vs. Legolas). It should NOT force you to do difficult tasks (Harry Potter Sorcerer's Stone Broom Flying).

Viewtiful Joe

[antin]

Damned hard, on any difficulty level, and it has 4 of them... Most people I know can barely beat it on easy (called 'Kids') let alone anything else.

It is rewarding however, not only is the gameplay insanely fun, but you unlock some fairly cool extras for each difficulty level you beat it on. That and it is one of the rare games that is enjoyable even while you are getting thrashed by the bosses - you just feel more determined to beat them next time.

Re:Viewtiful Joe

[emilng]

It's hard, but not too hard. I think 'too hard' implies that the reward is less than the effort required. I had a fun time with Viewtiful Joe. I didn't beat it, but there weren't any times when I felt like I couldn't get past a section if I tried a few more times. I can't wait until the sequel comes out.

Re:Ninja Gaiden - overhyped

[Have Blue]

All too often, searching for that save point results in blundering into what was supposed to be the challenge that that save point would let you repeatedly attempt. Also, the save points tended to be quite far back from said challenge (usually a boss), requiring you to repeatedly run the same jumping puzzle and defeat the same bunch of enemies to get back to the boss and try again.

Awww, no instant respawn got you down, widdle boy?

[Friedrich Psitalon]

Ninja Gaiden isn't that bad; I think the problem is more that people are expecting games to come easier and be more accepting of button mashing. In an era of "Respawn and frag again!" style games (Quake, Savage, Doom, et al) a game where death is something to be actively, intelligently avoided is automatically considered hard. Now add in the component "must be able to respond to different situations in different manners" and you've got "really hard." Now throw in the dreaded "have to be able to hit buttons in a certain combination while responding to different situations in different manners" and heaven forbid "USE THE APPROPRIATE TOOL FOR THE JOB".... well, wowee zowee, you've got Ninja Gaiden. However, NG doesn't rank on the all time "hard" list simply because at no time does it "luck kill" you. Everything that happens is directly traceable to player skill. No "Ooops, we felt like you should die now." No "A random piano fell from the sky because you thought for too long." Develop the skills. Learn the responses. Appreciate the tools for the job. Ninja Gaiden isn't a hard game - it's just not a "gimme my gory gratification instantly with no work" game.