Slashdot Mirror
Balancing Challenge Against Frustration In Games
Game-ism has an article discussing the balance game developers strive to achieve between making games challenging enough to be interesting, but not so much that they are frustrating. The author points to Assassin's Creed and GTA IV as examples of recent major titles which may have suffered from gameplay that was too easy to master. Conversely, a minor title like Bionic Commando Rearmed achieved more success than expected in part due to the sense of accomplishment that comes from completing parts of the game.
It is important to balance the difficulty of successfully trolling slashdot with the difficulty of moderation.
Ninja Gaiden. If it were mentioned in the Bible, the passage would be, "And then God said, '**** THIS GAME,' and promptly threw his controller across the room."
Too easy? I beg to differ (you insensitive clod!) Sure, the assassinations and missions in the cities aren't that hard. But then... You first get a big battle (the 9th assassination) that is incredibly hard to win and cannot be avoided. After playing through it two dozen times I've finally discovered a tactic that worked.
Then you get another big battle, with about twelve templars, that is nearly impossible to win. And after that, instead of a chance to catch your breath or a checkpoint, you immediately get to fight a mega-uber-baddy! WTF were they thinking? Why is there suddenly such an incredible focus on combat, and why does the difficulty curve has to rise so sharply!?
Besides... The game cheats. Examples:
1. During the battle with the dozen templars, when you perform a countermove, mostly you get your weakest countermove - the one that doesn't do any damage. In normal battles, you get the weakest countermove far less often.
2. The computer plain refuses to let you target an enemy that is on the floor and therefore vulnerable. Very noble of it, let them all just stand up so they can kill me instead! And even if you point him in the right direction, Altair will think nothing of it to target someone meters away and exactly the other direction instead.
3. Maybe you can drop out of combat mode, switch weapons, saunter over to the guy lying on the floor, and stick your blade into him at leasure. But not while you are surrounded by enemies you cannot. You'll be long dead before that happens.
4. If you have a lock on one enemy and decide to attack, quite often it will attack _another_ enemy that is much further away.
5. Halfway through the dozen-templars battle, they all suddenly switch to their "hit your sword up, unblockable strike" move. That _really_ sucks.
6. Not having a checkpoint at the end of that battle is just criminal.
7. Even if you see it coming, there is precisely nothing you can do to defend yourself from attacks from behind. Those occur with regular frequency when you are standing in a circle. It is hard to _not_ stand in a circle when there is a dozen opponents.
I've won that battle with the templars three times, only to be killed by Robert de Sable each time on his first attack. Then I went to GCW and installed a cheat. That worked great.
And don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved this game! I loved sneaking around, doing the missions (even if they repeated), just walking around town and enjoying the views (and finding flags and templars), the climbing, the chases, the assassinations. But I did not enjoy the string of battles at the end, and it would have been a better game without them.
Oh, and a quicker way to leave the game would have been nice (come on, it takes like two minutes!)... And non-skippable cutscenes? What is this, 1995?
Well, I'd better go and download some flame-retardant underwear from GCW so I can fight off the waves of 1337 gamers that are no doubt coming my way...
As with most subjective media, people rarely manage to assess games with an even hand. They will criticise one game for something, then praise another for doing the same. This is partly right, some things work in only certain types of games, a lot of the reason for this lack of objectivity is for other reasons though.
I would take a lot of stuff written about games like Bionic Commando with a pinch of salt, because everybody is so caught up in feeling all cool and retro and indie they rarely come up with a judgement unclouded by those feelings. There are a lot of reviewers that wouldn't dare criticise such a game for fear of harming their gaming credentials or angering some fanboys.
Yes the article does hint at the idea that big games, especially open world ones, are harder to tweak difficulty wise. But I think the author falls into the trap of having seen a cool small indie game, and going - why can't massive muli-milion dollar productions with 175 team members be just like this?
Firstly you generally have a tighter demographic for small indie games, despite their sometimes casual appearances, most of the people making them know exactly what their target players are going to like and dislike. GTA4 is played by multiple demographics, tweaking it to fit all of them is a much bigger task. Yup in Braid you can simply rewind and that mechanic works great, but it is much easier to come up with something like that when you have a much smaller, tighter, controlled environment.
Adjusting the difficulty on the fly is a lovely idea, but often hard to put into practice. It can sometimes feel like punishing the player for doing well. Max Payne used to adjust the damage enemies did to you according to how well you were doing. Playing through it, I quickly got to the point where the difficulty adjustment had clearly reached the maximum level, meaning getting caught out just once and taking a few hits killed me pretty much instantly. This gave me no chance to get the difficulty back down, because every encounter I either got through unscathed or died horribly.
A good article notheless, but it's not as simple as looking at small indie games and saying, we need things to be more like this! Different types of people want different levels of difficulty, and some types of games can be harder to adjust than others. Once AI has progressed a bit further, maybe we can do more complex things in FPS and RTS games than just adjusting how much damage enemies do to you.
You know what else never ends? A hamster wheel. The inability to win, beat the game, or just finish is the reason MMOs never interested me.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Frustration means not having what you want NOW. A challenge is trying to satisfy frustration. A sense of accomplishment is when frustration ends. This implies that without frustration, there is no challenge and no sense of accomplishment.
The fact is you really want frustration in a game. That's a good thing. Otherwise it is not a game but a pastime. What you don't want is having too much frustration.
I'm just on my twelth attempt this afternoon to get past the Kikimore Queen in The Witcher. OK, she's a 'level boss...', an end of chapter monster (and yes, I do know about collapsing the cieling on her - I just haven't yet timed it right).
But there is a critical difference between 'game design' and 'story telling'. In a game, it's OK to set a challenge that the player may repeatedly fail to get past. But in story telling, if you break immersion you have failed. And every time the player dies - or even has to explicitly save - you are revealing the artifice, breaking the immersion, failing.
In a good game, the player may try again, repeatedly. In a good story, he must never die. When designing an RPG, you have to make up your mind whether you're designing a game or telling a story, because the needs of the two objectives are very divergent.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
If you make it a performance based type of thing like Dance Dance Revolution or a racing game, the person loses and knows if they reacted faster and stuff, they would have done better. They usually don't blame the game for that and get all mad. But if you're playing Splinter Cell and the enemies keep seeing you cuz there's literally no way to not be in the shadows to get past a certain point, that's seem as a game design problem. The most common problem like that is not being able to find a person or item in an RPG. You walk around town for 15 minutes and the person is nowhere in sight. Now that pisses people off cuz they have no control over it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
The elements that make a game frustrating are often quite different from those that make a game challenging. There are a few very simple design tweaks that can be made to promote the latter at the expense of the former:
1) Make difficulty tweakable and make it a genuine skill range. Gamers these days have wildly diverging skill levels. What's challenging for one gamer is completely impossible for another. Ninja Gaiden is an illustration of how this can go wrong. For me, it was very, very hard. I know a few people however who took it back to the shop because they couldn't get past the first level. By all means, lock achievement points or other inessential goodies away on the harder difficulties. The original Baldur's Gate had the most broken difficulty system ever. Not only did reducing the difficulty level reduce the xp you earned, but if you had to load your game to retry a fight multiple times, the game would spawn even more enemies to make things harder.
2) Do everything you can to avoid making the player replay lengthy sequences. For the most part, this means allowing full quick-saves. I will, grudgingly, admit that there are a few types of game where quick-saves don't fit well. In these cases, regular check-points are the way to go. Even generally very easy games can become frustrating if a single silly mistake means you have to replay 10-15 minutes (or more) of stuff you've done already - perhaps several times. Rockstar games are good illustrations of how not to do this - too often, a mistake that occurs due to the somewhat craperific controls means you need to replay an entire 20 minute mission. Even Bully, which is their easiest outing by far, is prone to this. If anybody on your design team suggests that restricting the player's ability to save the game would make your title "unique" or "challenging", sack them. Note that I'm only suggesting sacking them because killing them is probably illegal.
3) Give the player at least something of a clue as to what he's supposed to do next. There's nothing worse in an fps than patrolling the same few sections of corridor for an hour because you can't see where you're supposed to go next. The AvP games were awful for this - the Alien campaigns were completely ruined by the amount of time you spent searching for some air-vent or grate you're supposed to go through. If I'm playing a 9 foot tall armour plated acid blooded killing machine, I want the option of tearing down locked doors - not hunting for a slightly differently textured great that I can mysteriously break, unlike the 99 near-identical others I passed.
4) If your game is based around "equal" struggle between two or more participants (eg. in RTSes or 1 on 1 brawlers), then make sure that AI opponents are bound by the same rules as players. One thing I absolutely hate are RTSes where I can completely cut off an AI player's resource flow and yet he can still pump out tanks faster than I can.
5) Cutscenes are great, but they should always be skippable. 'nuff said.
Personally I'm as hardcore a gamer as they come, and I'm just plain bored of spending more than 5 min on a single challenge. I don't mind if it's hard, but once I start spending 15 min at a time to get past different parts of the game because they are ramping up the difficulty, I'm so bored. I have a job, and I can easily afford to buy a new game at that point, but what I don't have is a ton of free time. The core audience got older and games have to adapt.
After the third time you fail a particular challenge, "skip" and "easy" options should be available. It is that simple. Then they can make it as hard as they want. I paid good money for the thing, why can't I play it the way I want? Sure, keep track of the stuff I skipped and add it to a menu so I can go back and finish it if I want to claim to have completed the game. Heck I don't mind if I have to go to youtube to see the final scenes if I don't feel like finishing every damn' thing.
Seriously. How is GTA too easy? The gameplay gets so repetitive before it is half way over, you wouldn't want to spend entire evenings grinding through it!?!
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
you can't win but you can definitely lose the game
Snowden and Manning are heroes.