Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Understanding Challenge
View All     RSS
September 19, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 19, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Understanding Challenge

January 8, 2013 Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4


Existential challenges test your ability to ponder the "big questions" about life and death. They ask you to question how you ought to act, morally speaking. They deal with right or wrong, not with social conventions, religious beliefs, or law. Recently, these challenges have become a more established category throughout games, ranging from board games to video games.

Such challenges are often expressed in games as either obviously good or obviously evil – maybe neutral, often substantially rewarding the extremes. For example, at one point in the action-adventure game Infamous, you are forced to choose between saving the life of your girlfriend Trish and saving the lives of several doctors. In other words, it asks the question "Is one life more valuable than the lives of many?" And due to the game's structure, you immediately know what choice is good and what choice is evil.

However, these challenges may not be clear-cut; two different courses of action may seem equally good or equally evil, depending on how each one is viewed. For example, it is wrong to steal. But is it wrong to steal food if the only alternative is to starve?

This ambiguity of choice forces one to take pause. Ultima V presents such a challenge where there is no clear choice. Deep in one of its mazes is a room filled with jail cells. Inside those cells are children.

When you enter the room, you can see the children and want to save them. But due to the limitations of the game, any "friendly" characters in a dungeon behave as monsters. This results in the children attacking their would-be rescuer as soon as they're set free. Richard Garriott, the game's designer, recalls:

"Well, I thought, that is an interesting little problem, isn't it? Because I knew darn well that the game doesn't care whether you kill them or whether you walk away. It didn't matter, but I knew it would bring up a psychological image in your mind, an image that was in my mind -- and any conflict you bring up in anybody's mind is beneficial. It means a person has to think about it.13

Do you set them free? If so, do you kill them to save yourself? There are no benefits or penalties for either action. It is not a trivial problem.

Summary of Challenges

Now we can assert that all challenges from across the history and into the future of games can be understood using the following:






Space as challenge


People as challenge






Language as challenge


Self as challenge






Numbers as challenge


Nature as challenge






Bodily-control as challenge


"Big question" as challenge




Sound as challenge


Keep in mind that there are numerous archetypal challenges that were not specifically cited (e.g. mazes, riddles, Rube Goldberg machines, physics puzzles). Regardless, they can still be understood in this taxonomy. Also note that a challenge is not necessarily limited to a single category; it may involve multiple intelligences. For example, while running and jumping across a chasm in Prince of Persia does involve fine-motor skills, it also involves understanding and judgment of space.

But what does this really mean? The vocabulary provides a more informed understanding of what and how challenges are used to create the player experience:

Charades: Bodily-kinesthetic (gross), Interpersonal

Dungeons & Dragons: Mathematical-logical, Interpersonal

Secret of Monkey Island: Mathematical-logical, Interpersonal

Myst: Mathematical-logical

Quake: Bodily-kinesthetic (fine), Spatial

Portal: Spatial, Mathematical-logical, Bodily-kinesthetic (fine)

Infamous: Bodily-kinesthetic (fine), Spatial, Interpersonal, Existential

Here we can see how each game uses challenge similarly and differently. When we compare charades and Quake, we can see charades emphasizes gross-kinesthetic challenge over interpersonal challenge while Quake emphasizes fine-kinesthetic challenge over spatial challenge. As with any formal model, by understanding how challenges impact the player experience, we are better able to break down that experience and use it to guide design, research and criticism.


1 Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. "MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research." In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, pp. 04-04. 2004.

2 Koster, Raph. Theory of fun for game design. O'Reilly Media, 2010.

3 Gardner, Howard E. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books, 1985.

4 Gardner, Howard E. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books, 2000.

5 Portal Wiki contributors, "Portal test chamber 05," Portal Wiki, (accessed October 21, 2012).

6 Monkey Island Wiki contributors, "Insult sword fighting," Monkey Island Wiki, (accessed October 21, 2012).

7 King's Quest Omnipedia contributors, "Sense Gnomes," King's Quest Omnipedia, (accessed October 21, 2012).

8 Rollings, Andrew, and Ernest Adams. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. New Riders Pub, 2003.

9 Wikipedia contributors, "Loom (video game)," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (accessed October 21, 2012).

10 Dni Wiki contributors, "Selenitic," Dni Wiki, (accessed August 10, 2004).

11 L.A. Noire Wiki contributors, "Interrogation," L.A. Noire Wiki, (accessed October 21, 2012).

12 von Ahn, Luis, Ruoran Liu, and Manuel Blum. "Peekaboom: A Game for Locating Objects in Images." (2006).

13 Addams, Shay. The official book of Ultima. Compute, 1992.

Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4

Related Jobs

HITN — Brooklyn, New York, United States

Associate Producer/Game Designer
HITN — Brooklyn, New York, United States

Freelance Game Designer
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Game Designer
Sparx — Exeter, England, United Kingdom

Senior Games Developer


Matthew Burns
profile image
Chad, this is an excellent article on understanding and discerning "challenge." I particularly like how you summed up the Mathematical-Logica section; l"The degree of the challenge is proportional to the supply of the resource against its demand. Regardless of what the resource is, the game challenges you understand its value."

Well done.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
Categorizing by nature is good, it can be easily done by completing the sentence: "this challenge will test your ______ skills". But the nature of the challenge can be twisted by the player's approach.

Pressing A when prompted by a QTE merely tests your reflexes, which the article puts under "Bodily-Kinesthetic" challenges. A player can react to the challenge, or he can have his pattern recognition anticipate the QTE before it happens, or he can play in a methodical way that makes it impossible for him to be surprised by QTEs, or he previously failed at the challenge and memorized the moment and button to press, or he has a statistical solution for the situation. All these twisting the most obvious nature of the challenge by the nature of the solution.

A game example of this is in skill-based shooters, there's this tactical skill called "crosshair placement" which is a solution for a problem of nature to "twitch aim", but of different nature, that can minimize and sometimes almost completely ignore the perceived initial nature of the challenge.

One way I like to think of challenges is their value nature, which in many cases can be a hint over complexity and IMO also a measure of quality.

Back on the QTE example, in it's simplest form, user can either press the right key in the right time or not, which categorizes the challenge as a binary-value one, for both input (press key or not) and outcome (beat challenge or not). Therefore the player can't evolve past the ability to overcome a challenge, and can't measure his skill progress doing so.

Taking Angry Birds as the example. It's a game that falls under the trajectory calculation genre (almost pure math, but players can simply learn where to pull the bird before releasing it, turning it in a memorization task), summed with a physics layer to it (mostly math and strategy), a bit of timing skill (to activate special abilities of the bird in the right moment), and the challenge is not just one of hit-or-miss anymore, but there are many different spots a player might want to hit (strategy comes from choices) and there's different levels of precision for a hit (which turns the aiming challenge, of mathematical nature, into a task of analog-value). But in the end, a huge amount of people play it as a slot machine, subverting all the challenges and their nature into a matter of chance.

Many challenges in games have more than one nested nature into them. In Quake 3, hitting a player with the Rail Gun and with the Rocket Launcher are tasks that share some natures but also have many differences to it. That's because each task can be split down into smaller tasks many times. Aiming where you want is a "Bodily-Kinesthetic" challenge, both guns share the same componential sub-task (a task which requires analog-value input), but beyond that the differences come in, where math tasks are inserted in the Rocket Launcher case, there's also the explosion radius, changing the resulting aspect of the challenge into an analog-value (how close you hit the rocket defines how much effective it is, which side you hit the rocket defines where the opponent can potentially be thrown), which the Rail Gun, which requires analog-value input, has binary-value outcome (you either hit or miss).

Analog-value tasks have different levels of failure or success, and allow players to evolve inside and measure the quality of their performance.

Binary and analog values are not the only cases tho. Games with special hit-boxes add other layers of strategy to the gameplay. In Counter-Strike, hitting a player in the head is harder than hitting body, but causes much more damage, hitting a player in the body is easier but causes less damage, hitting a player in the legs causes lowest damage, but slows the target down the most. While head-shots are the perceived immediate optimal strategy, the tactical situation of the game, the weapon you have in hand, the health situation of the shooter and the target players, the amount of players involved in the firefight, the amount of time left in the round, the recoil state of the weapon, all affect the management of outcomes and statistics of choosing where to aim for in a split second decision.

Strategic, option-value choices are often limited and clear distinguished from each other (in a logical way, player-perceived way is another subject), where you do one (or more?) of the possible choices in a given action.

Comparing these three basic input and outcome value-types to programming language, a challenge can have it's input and outcome categorized as boolean (binary), int/float/double (analog) or enumeration (finite-option).

Some challenges tho, can have ambiguos/subjective value-type. Doing a test, with score of 0-100, where 70 and above are considered success, can be considered by one player a binary-value challenge, and by another an analog value task. Similarly, the outcome of a finite-choice can be taken as binary-value or analog-value, it all depends where the player draws the line. "I want the S-rank", "the Golden trophy", "to beat the level without killing anybody", "without using ammo from the strongest weapon". Player's can also have different standards for different situation, as in "beat the level saving all Revives for the boss battle", then "just beat the boss, whatever I have to spend in the battle".

Concluding the personal opinion on quality stuff: binary-input, binary-outcome are the weakest, less interesting, less addicting, and negatively affected by repetition, kinds of challenges possible. That's mostly where categorizing challenges by value-type comes handy: to make uninteresting challenges into interesting ones... IMO.

Mathieu Halley
profile image
Couldn't the outcome of a scored test be categorized as having a complex value-type? Irrespective of whether the player succeeds or fails, they still receive a score. Success/Failure is a boolean outcome and Score is an analog outcome.

Continuing from that perspective, I suppose you could analyse a challenge, determine which of the inputs and outcomes are of primary significance and then use this information to determine the nature of the challenge. For example: How does a challenge that has Success/Failure as the primary outcome differ from one that has Score as the primary outcome?

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
@Mathieu Halley

Quite interesting observation!

This can be a good example as to that feeling for a player that didn't kill the boss yet, but had his HP way lower than in the first try". There's no binary Success yet, but still a sense of analog Progression, which is a powerful motivator to Try Again.

Chad Kilgore
profile image
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and your comments...

The strength of using the Theory of Multiple Intelligences as a foundation is twofold. First, each intelligence requires the following criteria:
1.) Potential for brain isolation by brain damage,
2.) Place in evolutionary history,
3.) Presence of core operations,
4.) Susceptibility to encoding (symbolic expression),
5.) A distinct developmental progression,
6.) The existence of savants, prodigies and other exceptional people,
7.) Support from experimental psychology and psychometric findings.

As you can see, this breakdown is not an arbitrary classification. In fact, I would love to see brain scans of people playing different types of games to determine if this taxonomy is sound.

Second, the theory removes the concept of quality, which appears to be your primary focus. In my opinion, discussions of quality ultimately lead to an argument of subjectivity. What you deem as interesting, I may deem as uninteresting. For example, there are millions of people that find reality TV fascinating; I do not.

That said, your categorization is certainly insightful. But I think it could be simplified into 2 categories based on the expression of the game's rules: progressive or emergent. Progressive rules create challenges that require the player to perform a predefined sequence of events, whereas emergent rules create challenges that "emerge" from the interaction of the game's mechanics. Your Quake 3 and Counter-Strike examples would both fall into this category, as there are a small number of simple rules interacting to produce more complex results in both cases. The difference is the expression of meaningful choice and feedback in that choice.

You are absolutely correct in that repetition negatively affect progressive rules. But I think it would be hasty to dismiss such rules are inherently uninteresting. Take "The Walking Dead" for example. The rules are clearly progressive while simultaneously being interesting.

John Maurer
profile image
First off, excellent article Chad. I thought it quite insightful. @Luis, I see your point, and I don't mean any offense when I say this, but your post seems a little trollish. Thing about emergent gameplay is that it tends to "emerge" out of progressive mechanics. Not that emergent systems have not been made intentionally before, but I would imagine that even then a lateral thinking player likely managed to suprise a designer.

What Chad is trying to do is develop an evolved jargon, one that is both abstract and meaningful. Diving into a new or revisited mechanic your always going to want the high-level first, helps one to wrap their mind around a new or existing system.

"This mechanics has these bells & whistles, but its basically [fill in the blank]." I'd rather hear/read something like that out the gate going into a design than pour over documentation or worse ping tribal knowledge, and I believe this may be the spirit of what Chad was trying to communicate with this article.

Chris Toepker
profile image
Thanks for a very interesting article. I would suggest adding another category: Strategic Challenge.

That is, challenges in decision making.

As Dixit, Skeath and Nalebuff write: “The simple rule is that unless there are two or more players, each of whom responds to what others do (or what each thinks the others might do), it is not a (strategic) game."

“There must be some cross-effect of actions; what one does must affect the outcome for the other” (AND), the participants must be mutually aware of this cross effect. Going further: “Playing games requires many different kinds of skills. Basic skills such as shooting ability in basketball, knowledge of precedents in law, or a blank face in poker, (or, interfacing with a console or PC to make moves quickly and efficiently) are one kind (of skill): strategic thinking is another.

"Strategic thinking starts with your basic skills and considers how to best use them. Knowing how well your football team can pass or run and how well the other team can defend against each choice, your decision as coach is whether to pass or run. Sometimes, strategic thinking also means knowing when not to play.”

While your "interpersonal" area touches on this, I think it can be refined, ultimately into its own category. In any case, there is rich literature out there on this, just not specifically tailored to (video) games, which I think may be useful in your (likely ongoing) efforts. And thanks again for them! (

Chad Kilgore
profile image
Sorry for the late reply.

You bring up an excellent point. Personally, I think strategy can be considered an economic challenge that strongly weighs the situation. In the case of Gears of War (and other cover-based shooters), you evaluate potential cover positions based on the enemy locations and the cover points health. You have to quickly evaluate the cost of each potential tactic. This case combines Mathematical-Logical and Spatial challenge. In Poker, you may willing lose a hand to throw off opponents from reading your tells, which combines Mathematical-Logical and Intrapersonal.

Do you have any recommended literature that discusses strategy?

Robert Hoischen
profile image
An interesting article to say the least. It does put an intriguing spin on what fun in gaming is and made me think about my playing habits and how those fit into "my profile" as given by your categories. Pretty accurate I found.

Also, I do agree with Chris above that I feel strategic-thinking components in games are slightly under-represented in your list, although you do touch on various parts of that. What I seem to miss the most is: the needs to plan (far) ahead using limited, incomplete information you do have. Of course you can count information as being a resource, but there is a distinct difference between a resource given to you as a definite number in a game or on the map and a perceived and possible manipulated situation encountered in the game (a ruse for example) which forces you to decide between two or more options. Decision making for long term goals is one of the most satisfying aspects of the RTS and Grand Strategy genres.

While I found your Ultima V story a bit amusing, I don't think it catches the essence of you want to say? (Or maybe I get the situation the player is put into all wrong!) You say yourself it doesn't make any difference in the game, but the choice is not trivial (i.e. it has the big picture question tide to it). The way I understand the situation I have to disagree: it is indeed trivial as the existential outcome is the same too: in both cases the children die, either of starvation, disease, or worse, OR by your sword. It doesn't really change anything. If the outcome basically is the same, the player indeed is faced with a trivial problem and has no incentive to care.

I find some of the no-right-no-wrong choices in The Witcher series to be much better examples here, as they DO change non-trivial things and make you think about similar topics.

Anyway, nice write-up! :) Cheers!