|
When older gamers talk about the good old day’s one of the key points they bring up is difficulty. Namely those games back then were harder and therefore better. In my last look at difficulty in design, I talked about looking at what made classic games challenging was more important. If a game was difficult due to poor design or a confusing UI, then that's not really a good challenge.
Lately with games like Diablo 3 and Demon's and Dark Souls, discussion about difficult areas are usually shut down by the usual retorts from expert players that the game is fine, and that people aren't good enough. However without saying this too oddly: it's easy to make a hard game. The quandary and where a good designer is needed, is being able to separate hard from challenging.
If the player feels like there is no hope of playing and the game is messing with them, then they're not going to stick around for long. Good difficulty is not about pounding the player into the ground, but presenting something that can be beaten either by player skill or character development. To help differentiate between the two concepts, here are some points I've found that tilt the balance towards a game being hard.
Dark Souls
1. Removing Choice:
A classic example of what makes good game design, is giving players choices. Different spells, weapons, moves, armies etc. But to make a game hard, designers like to create situations that require specific solutions which mean that not every choice works.
One of the most annoying things when playing a game, is to spend hours building a character or army of your choosing, to discover that it's no longer viable and that there were only a few options that would be consider "correct". A staple of RPGs is featuring optional super bosses that are designed in such a way that unless you go into the fight with the correct skills and party members, you'll have no hope of winning.
In Diablo 3, players have a lot of choices how to define their character, thanks to the limits on active and passive skills. Along with each active skill, a rune can be assigned that modifies the skill further. Playing on normal and nightmare difficulty, the enemies are balanced enough that a variety of strategies can work. But things change once you enter the latter two difficulties: Hell and Inferno.
Enemy stats are boosted to the point that some skills and choices are no longer viable. Playing the Witch Doctor class, choices like summoning dogs don't work due to the stat difference between them and the enemies. Skills built around slowing enemies also aren't as effective both due to the faster speed and innate resistance special enemies have at the higher difficulties. Since enemies do so much damage, it's important to have a skill for escaping and one for backup healing, which once again forces the player to make pre determined choices about their builds.
While Diablo 3 is 2012's example, last year, Deus Ex: Human Revolution ran into this problem with the boss designs. The issue wasn't that the bosses were impossible to fight, but that all the choices that the game offered the player were thrown out the window except to fight.
For players who were already focused on combat, these fights weren't that bad. But if you were playing the game using stealth and the stun gun, you would be incredibly out gunned for each of the fights. The DLC episode: The Missing Link did partially fix this with a boss that could have been beaten with stealth. But that didn't fix the bumps in the road players had to alter their play style around.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
If the only way to succeed at the end game is to use pre-made builds then there is a problem with balance. Now, it shouldn't mean that every choice should make the game easy and granted some choices would be better than others. However, if you give the player 10 options, 6 of them should not instantly become useless at a certain point.
2. Using the game mechanics against the player:
A video game is about a series of rules that are followed by both the player and the game space itself. When the designer circumvents the rules it can lead to unfair challenges. This was a point in my latest article “The Anatomy of a Bad Game", if a designer breaks their own rules, it can lead to "cheap difficulty"
The first example comes from Dark Souls. I've talked previously about the Capra Demon fight in my analysis: In which the battle takes place in a constricted area with three enemies making it hard to move around and use the camera effectively. A later boss fight: The Caterpillar Demon is similar in how the camera has a tough time tracking it. During that fight, due to the size of the creature, the camera constantly gets stuck preventing the player from seeing the creature's tells for when it is about to attack.
I know that people have argued against me on this example stating that the fight was easy for them. But it doesn't matter if it was the easiest fight in the world or the hardest. When a section of a game is designed to be difficult by the inherent rules ,design or technical issues of the game, that is not good design. This motto also applies to the next example.
In Diablo 3, the designers have gone on record stating they wanted the player's skill selection and attributes to dictate success or failure. To facilitate that, if the player is about to be attacked by an enemy, even if the player moves out of the way, the attack will still connect. The reasoning was that they didn't want quick fingers to have a factor in success.
On paper this sounds reasonable and fair, but when players move on to the higher difficulty levels this become a problem. Playing on Hell and Inferno, enemies move naturally faster, and the "fast" modifier for special enemies occurs more often. What happens is that enemies are so quick that the player can't run away from them. This means that once the enemy begins to attack, it will connect regardless of the player's position, preventing the player from escaping.
This leads to plenty of cases where the player has no way to survive and their only option is to die repeatedly. The problem with this design decision is that the designer's used their rule about enemy animations to then create scenarios that are built against the player.
Star Wars Jedi Academy
Another example was the infamous "sniper town" level from Medal of Honor. The level tasked players with moving through a destroyed town while being targeted by snipers. However, the snipers themselves blended in so well with the less then detailed textures making it hard to spot. Adding frustration, the snipers could kill the player in a few shots, which due to how hard it was to see those, means they'll usually get a free shot on the player. The sniper town level design was copied in Star wars Jedi academy, but replace sniper rifles with laser rifles.
3. Overkill
Lastly is when designers take the balance of the game and throw it out the window for the harder difficulty levels. Examples of this are mainly seen in games with RPG design but can also be seen in some action titles.
What happens is that to make each difficulty level different, the designers tweak the attribute values of enemies without any regard for balance. If the player can only take 5 points of damage, making every enemy's attack do 12 is going to make the game harder, but not balanced.
This is one of the reasons why I don't like to play Turn Based RPGs on anything other than the normal difficulty. Since player interaction is limited to choosing commands, there really isn't anything the player can do to get around the difficulty increase other than spending even more time grinding out levels.
As an example from an action title, Nier was an action adventure game similar to Zelda which came out a few years ago. The game featured two difficulty settings: Normal and Hard. The problem is that the difficulty of the game swung too far between being easy and frustrating based on the difficulty.
When playing the game on normal, basic enemies take two hits from the player to die, and the player must be hit 12 times in a row to die. On hard, those numbers are reversed, and when the player is fighting groups of five or more basic enemies at once, the player could be killed before they even knew what hit them.
Nier
I'm not sure if this is just me, but I find games that are frustrating difficult as boring to play as ones that are ridiculously easy. Walking into a room and dying within seconds doesn't interest me, neither does having to play a game optimizing everything using a guide to stand a chance.
There is a fine line between creating something that is a challenge, and something that is just masochistic for the player. The trick is to understand how to test the player with the design, without overwhelming them.
Josh Bycer
This is reprinted from my blog: Mind's Eye . I know that I promised a blog post focusing on Diablo 3's inferno mode and this one isn't it. But I'll be posting that here soon.
|
I would add "Non-sensical objectives" to your list of frustrating design that increase difficulty in a bad way
I hate it in games when suddenly there isn't a clear goal of what you are supposed to do. For example, when I got locked up in Dragon's Dogma after accidentally committing a crime, you wake up in jail with no items or eq. I was frustrated because there seemed to be no solution. Turns out you just have to sit there and wait in real time until the guard comes by and talk to you.
I have run into this in many other games where you spend 15 minutes trying to find a solution to a problem that didn't exist. In vampire masquerade bloodlines, there is a ghost level where you have to go retrieve a pendent. During the level, it appears the ghost is asking for your help to free her. So after I found the pendent, I proceed to spend 15 minutes running everywhere in the level to find a solution to free her. turns out, you were just supposed to leave after getting the pendent.
I find design like that to be super annoying. Don't design things to trick a player into thinking there is more to do than you can actually offer them, otherwise, we will just be frustrated and disappointed.
Seriously? Did Blizzard intentionaly lower the skill ceiling of the game? Just, wow. The only logical reason for such a design choice to cap and player's ability to play is if you plan on selling advantages and don't want anybody to be good at the game for free.
On tipic:
1. This is a tricky case.
2. I wouldn't say an specific function of camera controlling script should be a game-mechanic in the case of Dark Souls. But exploring limitations of the genre and the input system that aren't desirable in the first place won't make the added difficulty any enjoyable at all.
3. Generic stats boosting is the cheapest and most boring form of raising difficulty a design can apply. There are so many better options: increasing enemy numbers, mixing enemy type, giving special characteristics and abilities, reducing reward, changing the arena for a more dargerous one...
Difficulty must make sense and fit the consistency of the game world. A weird camera script blocking your visibility is not immersive, a soldier surviving 10 bullets to the head doesn't make sense, and a player choosing to run-and-gun in a tactical shooter doesn't make sense either.
So if a melee attack is initiated against you (meaning they were close enough to do so), it will connect. But if that weren't the case, then the only optimal strategy would be maxing run speed so you would never be hit in melee. Diablo isn't meant to be a dodging game, which is what it would have become.
I really didn't get this criticism. Of course a fast enemy is going to hit you, that right there is entirely the -point- of them. If your only way to survive is running away, that is the real problem, which is solved in-game by improving equipment, getting better allies or improving your playstyle.
Really, the whole 2nd section seems contrived. Snipers are hard to see, and the problem is bad textures? Aren't the -supposed- to be hard to see? Am I missing something?
It's more like, an enemy begins its attack animation, you move completely out of the way before it's even done swinging. And you still take full damage. And enemies that can just keep hitting you as you're trying to get away which on inferno is a lot of damage.
"I really didn't get this criticism. Of course a fast enemy is going to hit you, that right there is entirely the -point- of them. If your only way to survive is running away, that is the real problem, which is solved in-game by improving equipment, getting better allies or improving your playstyle."
None of your suggestions are actually feasible. If the only way to get improved equipment is to fight enemies that can kill you within seconds, how are you supposed to improve? And you can't answer with the auction house as that's not in game improving. Coupled with the poor itemization at 60 means that finding upgraded gear is more of a crap-shoot in game.
Allies don't work unless your friends are above the power curve for the area. As each person increases the health pool of the enemies, so you'll still be focused down and then your friends are left to deal with the enemies.
Play style? If you just used all your healing and escape skills to avoid death from an enemy group. To then have them immediately catch up to you and then kill you before your skill timers reset. What could you have done differently to avoid that?
In general, I've found it rather easy to spot where the developers chose something that was invariably easier to implement when there were not one, but an endless array of better-balanced solutions, and I'm inclined to say that masochism occurs when developers want to provide frustration without reward, while challenge takes place when developers try to ensure that greater challenges are more inherently enjoyable.