Topic: EDITORIALS: This Game Is Too Easy/Medium/Hard

[IceCold]

Quote
Go look up some energy tank locations and read some strategy for the boss fight (the classic ways of making a game easier).

But that takes all the fun out of the game.. Getting repeatedly beaten by Thardus, then finally killing him, was a great feeling.  

[Djunknown]

Quote
The only reason we couldn't beat that boss the right way is because you insisted on playing "light side" the first time through. If you'll remember, when we played "dark side" afterwards, he went down easily. Obviously the game is poorly balanced.

He's not that tough on light side either. The guardian class seems to be the least frustrating route to go, since force powers don't do much to him. I beat him by buffing my character (Force Speed and a few others) slash with lightsaber, run and heal. Keep at it until dead.

In RE:UC, changing difficulty on any mission was put there purposely also for those who want to focus on getting files/items. This increases the replay value since you can focus on just getting through the game the first time, then get the goodies the second time, which may unlock other levels.

Quote
However, we could never get better than a B ranking which means very little upgrading on weapons and opening new scenarios. We will probably go through it again on the ones that unlock other areas and try it on normal again, but if that doesn't work, we'll try it on easy.

Getting an A rank or better seems to be more difficult with 2 player due to the fact its tracking both your stats. One player may be getting head shots like crazy, but if your partner is content with pumping zombies full of lead without properly aiming, that affects the grading. Also in some situations that call for QTE (Quick Time Events), one player may mess up, while the other does fine, causing you to continue, adding on time. This happened to me one time when I was playing with my cousin. The Nemesis scenario at the beginning was something we couldn't get it right for 15 minutes. After enough finger pointing (waggle pointing?), we got it together and moved on.

Quote
you just have to reveal that we're all a bunch of closet schizos (well, more accurately, that we all have multiple personality disorders).

Nothing wrong with talking the voices in your head. But if they talk back, then its time for some professional drugs help...

[Stogi]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote
Go look up some energy tank locations and read some strategy for the boss fight (the classic ways of making a game easier).

But that takes all the fun out of the game.. Getting repeatedly beaten by Thardus, then finally killing him, was a great feeling.

QFT

There are some games that kick my ass and there are some games that mind**** me; but that's all part of the challenge. Figuring out how to beat a boss, or finally having the quick reflexes needed to win is part of what makes the game fun.

Without the challenge, why would I play games?

[Rize]

Yes, but matt oz completely gave up on Metroid Prime 4 years ago.  If it's a choice between not playing the game and finishing it, you might as well seek a little advice.  Individual players no when it's time to do this.  If you never do it, then you're probably good enough to beat games yourself (at least on normal mode).

[KDR_11k]

Complaining about adjustable difficulty is like complaining about memory saves instead of passwords or maybe saves in general. It's not the game dev's job to guess how capable you are, if you misestimate yourself you should be able to correct it without having to play through the early parts of the game again. If you don't want to use the option don't use it, I've played plenty of games where I could have adjusted the difficulty in midgame but didn't. Takes much less restraint than, say, voluntarily limiting your credits in an arcade port.

RPGs can be a mess, but the balance issues are inseparable from the gameplay. If you take out character development, it's hardly an RPG anymore. If you make sure the game is always challenging, then every player, no matter how good, will have to level grind (ala the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games), although these days that sort of RPG is considered classic by many people. The other side of the coin is to make sure the character is overpowered and then many people will find the game too easy. Finally, some developers give you the illusion of character development, so that they can be certain of maintaining the challenge. That's probably the best way for the most people, but there's still some that prefer the old-school method of course.

That's missing the RP in RPG. There is no reason an RPG needs character development in the "god" direction, there is no reason a late-game character needs to be able to withstand fifteen shots in the face. You could have an RPG where the player remains at a constant strength throughout, the development people want to see is of the character's character, not his physical traits.

[Rize]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Complaining about adjustable difficulty is like complaining about memory saves instead of passwords or maybe saves in general. It's not the game dev's job to guess how capable you are, if you misestimate yourself you should be able to correct it without having to play through the early parts of the game again. If you don't want to use the option don't use it, I've played plenty of games where I could have adjusted the difficulty in midgame but didn't. Takes much less restraint than, say, voluntarily limiting your credits in an arcade port.

RPGs can be a mess, but the balance issues are inseparable from the gameplay. If you take out character development, it's hardly an RPG anymore. If you make sure the game is always challenging, then every player, no matter how good, will have to level grind (ala the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games), although these days that sort of RPG is considered classic by many people. The other side of the coin is to make sure the character is overpowered and then many people will find the game too easy. Finally, some developers give you the illusion of character development, so that they can be certain of maintaining the challenge. That's probably the best way for the most people, but there's still some that prefer the old-school method of course.

That's missing the RP in RPG. There is no reason an RPG needs character development in the "god" direction, there is no reason a late-game character needs to be able to withstand fifteen shots in the face. You could have an RPG where the player remains at a constant strength throughout, the development people want to see is of the character's character, not his physical traits.

The game developer shouldn't have to guess how capable you are, you're right.  If they design the game properly, they'll *know*.  If you were able to beat level 1, they know you're at least that capable.  Level 2 should be a natural progression beyond level 1 so that if you just barely beat level 1, you should be able to grow naturally and beat level 2.  If you beat that, they'll you're at least that capable, and so on.  A poor game design bumps the difficulty up too much too quickly.  It's also a developer's job to make sure that new game concepts are introduced adequately before you have to use them in stressful situations.  Zelda games make you use hookshots for simple transportation before making you use it in combat for example.  That kind of thing is not an accident.  Good designers do it intentionally.

About RPG's.  The term is currently applied to a wide variety of game designs.  There are some common threads, but I wouldn't say that all RPG's need character development, or that lal players want them.  The first console RPG, Dragon Quest, was mostly about stat development, and you didn't even guide it in any notable way.  The original term was from pen and paper RPG's and referred to each player having to "play a role" (i.e. act to some degree, and use their imagination to bring the world to life".

[matt oz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Yes, but matt oz completely gave up on Metroid Prime 4 years ago.  If it's a choice between not playing the game and finishing it, you might as well seek a little advice.  Individual players no when it's time to do this.  If you never do it, then you're probably good enough to beat games yourself (at least on normal mode).

Yeah, I don't think I'll ever finish it.  I think I actually found all the energy tanks up to that point, because when I first got stuck, I went around the whole game world trying to do everything else I could do.  I can't bring myself to sell/trade/give it away though.  Maybe one day I'll just start over and try again.

[Rize]

Seriously you could pick it right back up and do it  He's not that hard.  People beat him on hard mode.  There are a few tricks that make it a lot easier.  Sadly, luck can even make it easier (depending on which colors of supporting pirate troopers harass you, it's more or less difficult).

If you did restart the game though, that wouldn't be anything to cry over.  I've played Metroid Prime at least 5 times all the way through at this point.  Maybe 6.  It's a beautiful and fun game that's well worth experiencing at least a second time.

[KDR_11k]

You can grow to any level, the question is how long it'll take you and if you're willing to do so. People learn at different speeds, you can't say if a player finishes level 1 he's 1 hour of learning short of beating level 2, some people will learn that in 5 minutes, others would take 8 hours for it. It's pretty much impossible to make the difficulty of level 1 so representative that anyone who can't deal with the difficulty progression will figure that out immediately.

So what if it is a copout? Do you think customizable controls are just a crutch for devs who can't figure out the perfect control scheme that fits everyone? You can throw a crutch away but that won't make you able to walk.

[Rize]

Remember, I took two sides in this debate!  Collectively ( ) I think the majority of games could be designed without the difficulty being adjustable in the middle of the level, but it requires a lot more time and effort to do this really well.  Alternatively, a developer with fewer resources or one who is developing a game with more challenging gameplay might be spending their resources most effectively by putting the adjustable difficulty level in.

The only case I disagree with completely is Oblivion.  As it is, there's a lot to see and do in the game, but the character development is a mess.

As for customizable controls, that's an entirely different editorial.  And I could write an entire editorial on the subject (in fact, I may just do that).  The short version is that whether controls should be customizable depends on the game.  In theory all games should have a good default scheme and then full customization as an option.  This creates a number of potential problems though.  I'll either write more here, or perhaps an entire editorial on the subject.

[KDR_11k]

I really haven't seen any game that really needed the difficulty adjustment (and some only allowed it between levels which makes sense if the difficulty affects more than damage multipliers), it's just a convenience feature so you don't have to start over.

Oblivion was a total mess anyway, adjustable difficulty or not. Many people hated it, some used mods (on the PC) to fix some of the more glaring issues. I really don't think Oblivion's failure should be blamed on the difficulty slider.

[oohhboy]

No one would argue that Oblivion had massive problems. But the difficulty slider was an awful, lazy attempt to fix them. It was the equivalent of a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Changing difficulty between levels is great and all, especially for FPS where it is pretty easy to divide out levels in such a pattern. But the differences must be a bit more meaningful than damage multipliers. GE/PD to Timesplitters 2. TS2 failed in that department by loading you up with pointless collectathons like collecting wanted posters as extra objectives. Although I do admit that might have been the result of having and overly linear level design...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Games suck.

[Rize]

Exactly, the difficulty slider in Oblivion wasn't the problem so much as it it was a bad attempt to fix the problem.  If the difficulty is changeable in a well balanced game, I don't think many people would complain.  They would just play the game.

[KDR_11k]

So why even debate this?

[Rize]

Because a lot of games aren't well balanced.  And debating illustrates problems.  My next editorial will be more normal looking though.

[KDR_11k]

But then why not just say "games are horribly balanced2 instead of "games shouldn't let you adjust the difficulty"?