Gameplay "difficulty"" settings

[tuna]

It is kind of weird that we still have these discussions today. A game like Super Mario World got this perfect in 1990. You have a "main" path in the game which is doable for the majority of the players, and then you have optional objectives that are much harder.

In open world games either the developers can implement specific game modes, or the players can do that themselves if they want.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It depends on the game. Pretty sure we discussed this a while back around Uncharted, with talk about the AI becoming harder in harder difficulties, and that's definitely doable. Feel the same was said about KZ2. From a developer perspective, it's easy to pad out AI with errors and delays to make it simpler, while the algorithms used for aim etc. are perfect so at absolutely difficulty, AI would be unstoppable. Which was another point we talked ab out - we want AI to be limited as there's no way one hero could successfully take on 100 trained combatants unless those trained combatants are severely handicapped.

Bullet sponges and glass protagonists are reasonable parameters. They aren't doing a lot but it changes up the choices the player needs make. This goes back to DnD in the 70s - how else do you scale difficulty?

You can also increase speed and amount on screen. Completing R-Type on Master System rolled into a game+ mode with way more happening on screen. Needed better reactions, decision making, and faster Drone control.

Lastly there's increased complexity. eg. Elemental resistances which can be negligible in low difficulty but fundamental in higher difficulties.

 

[Daozang]

The premise is nonsense.

There's no such thing as a the 'perfect difficulty'. What's too hard for some people is too easy for others.

This is the gist of it.
Is there a single authority to dictate what is easy, what is acceptable and what is hard?
Short answer, no.

For some weird reason, people think that games should be tailor made specifically for them...

 

[Davros]

Is there a single authority to dictate what is easy, what is acceptable and what is hard?
Short answer, no.

Well there is but I'm busy.......

 

[tuna]

For some weird reason, people think that games should be tailor made specifically for them...

Games should be tailor made for me! Or at least they should FEEL like they were made like that.

 

[ZebMacahan]

I really dislike the "difficulty" settings in games today.

Back in the day games were much more unforgiving.
Like eg. X-Wing.
Last chapter, second to last battle. BLAM. You die.
Go back to the start, begin a new career and do better this time.
No easy mode, no being held in the hand.

It gave an sense of achievement when you finally cracked "the code" and completed a hard challenge.
Games like "Populous", "Wing Commander" or "Another world" are also great exmaples of games that have no difficulty settings.
And I find the gameplay had a better design of that.
The developers made the game hard and did not have to resort to eg. "bullet sponges" to adapt for more difficulty settings or other cheats.

You just started the game up and any failure was on you, not the game.
It feels like a "participation trophy" setting more than anything else today.

For me "difficulty" settings are a "must cater to all" and it impacts gameplay in a negativ way.

On the one hand it depends on what time of game it is. I had a blast with doom eternal. On normal difficulty on console (yeah, Im probably a n00b) it sure got my adrenaline pumping. Intense combat is what the game is about. Indiana Jones on the other hand wouldn´t have benefited if the combat or stealth were difficult. That game is more like an interactive movie and about the adventure, and stealing a key from a military camp or punching a random fascist shouldt require expert timing IMO.

And while Doom Eternal was difficult (for me at least) it never felt unfair, you had the tools to deal with your enemies. Halo Infinite on the other hand felt much more dependent on luck IMO. In a matter of a second you could find yourself in a situation where you were screwed, and it wasnt really your fault. It was more about bad luck and lackin the tools to deal with the threats.

RE4 had some really difficult and chaotic sequences (like the cabin for example). Those I could imagine are really difficult to balance right. It certain level of chaos is needed to create a sense of panic, but if its too chaotic and luck based it can get too frustrating.

 

[Nesh]

That doesn't address the point. How do you go about reaching a wide enough audience to have an economically viable product? The difficult games you played in the past (and some were just really bad game design because they didn't know any better, and/or an attempt to extend the value of the game through 'replayability' by being impossible to complete) cost very little to make so didn't need to sell to 5+ million players.

Games were also much shorter. And long games with manual save points were soul eaters. Can't imagine reliving the hell of losing to an unexpected unavoidable overpowered boss in an RPG after 4 hours of progress since my last save.

 

[mr magoo]

Games were also much shorter. And long games with manual save points were soul eaters. Can't imagine reliving the hell of losing to an unexpected unavoidable overpowered boss in an RPG after 4 hours of progress since my last save.

Yeah i think this is it. They had to compensete somehow and best/cheapest way was it to make harder to beat.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah i think this is it. They had to compensete somehow and best/cheapest way was it to make harder to beat.

I don't think that's fair. As stated already, you can't game balance for any specific target - all players have different abilities. Devs could only pick something that seemed right, likely didn't have much by way of public testing options, and primarily were basing it on their own internal testing which was far higher skill than the average player because of far more play time. As a result, games were just kinda hard, and gamers knew that and played to that. Potential gamers that just didn't play games because they were too hard is what kept the market down to a few tends of millions of players around the world instead of hundreds of millions, billions with mobile games. And because devs knew the current gamers bought games that were challenging, that set the standard. A self-fulling prophecy; a self-balancing market.

So IMO it wasn't a type of padding, making it hard to get play hours in the same way devs add filler busywork these days. It was just the standard of the time, games were supposed to be a challenge and devs probably not appreciating how much of a challenge and players not having any other options than what limited games were available. And as I say, players found ways around difficulty; devs recognised they could get the balance wrong for some players so put in cheat codes (also probably there for developer testing purposes and just left in), and gamers created pokes and hacks to get around excessive difficulty. So difficulty has always been adapted whether the games provided those options or not.

 

[pcchen]

My friend just talked with me about Final Fantasy XVI's difficulty system a few days ago. It has multiple "rings" you can use, each has its own assistance function. For example, one helps you targeting and another helps you control your pet. They can also be used together, in any combination you like. I think this could be a better difficulty system than the "enemies hit harder" or "enemies have more HP" system in many games.

 

[Seanspeed]

There is simply no 'one good solution' for difficulty that fits all games. You cant point to "Well 'x' game did this, and so every game should do that" because it just doesn't work like that.

Main thing I hate is when harder difficulty options are locked behind completing the game first. And even then there's exceptions where I think it can be ok like in Ninja Gaiden Black or something where a lot more effort gets put into these higher difficulties and are very clearly built for people who have already mastered the previous level of difficulty and not something anybody could just jump into for their first playthrough.

I also really appreciate this slowly cottoning trend of games offering custom difficulty settings rather than strict 'Easy, Medium, Hard' presets or whatever. It's hard to know what custom settings to choose when first starting out, but usually a bit of time in the game allows you to get a sense of things and then calibrate the difficulty options to your liking.

I don't think that's fair. As stated already, you can't game balance for any specific target - all players have different abilities. Devs could only pick something that seemed right, likely didn't have much by way of public testing options, and primarily were basing it on their own internal testing which was far higher skill than the average player because of far more play time.

Not just cuz of more playtime, but also because when you're the one designing the game, you know the inner workings.

I'm not some game developer by any means, but even spending some time making a bunch of Super Mario Maker levels really taught me how incredibly easy it is to lose sight of how a normal player might fare with or deal with the challenges you're designing for them. And that's even with trying to keep it in mind. Fact is, you can never go back to 'not knowing' about your game/level, so it becomes basically impossible to try and 'imagine' how an outside person will see and deal with it. This is why external playtesting is just so critical. That's not without its own pitfalls, but if you're trying to do everything internally, you're going to get lost in your own world. Fine for making music, or even movies, TV, etc with very prescribed experiences, less so for interactive video games where you rely so much on the end user having to navigate through the experience you designed for them manually.