Are difficulty settings necessary?

Default_picture
Friday, May 27, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

I'm not a fan of difficulty settings because they're usually just tacked-on bonus modifiers for either the player or enemies. That's not interesting. Like Mark, I'd much rather see designers handle difficulty by utlizing the game's mechanics to create unique challenges.

The pursuit of a challenge can be a driving force in life. The accomplishment of something thought to be unobtainable has a certain allure that some find irresistible.

Game designers tend to play off of this concept, creating challenges that seem insurmountable in the context of the virtual world. Typically, there will be an option for the player to affect the likelihood of beating the odds through difficulty settings.

As a designer, the proper implementation of difficulty, in my opinion, is instituting a learning curve and building from there. Once the player has gleaned knowledge from the game, the designer is free to introduce complex obstacles that utilize this understanding in varying ways.

Approaching the difficulty question from this angle allows designers to create more involving situations during the progression of the game. This concept of “learning in order to succeed” seems to eradicate the necessity of a difficulty option altogether.

 

Portal is a good example of this idea. Its unique concept of solving puzzles with two-way wormholes forces the player to learn how to properly utilize the tools at her disposal. The player is forced to adapt her brain to understand the inner workings of the mechanics presented in the form of the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device. The player needs to recognize when to utilize the unique quirks of the device, such as how one can transfer downward momentum into forward momentum.

Once she starts “thinking with portals,” solving puzzles becomes second nature. She has learned how to navigate this new world, and the only difficulty that remains is whether the player is willing to allow her brain to embrace the tagline. Portal 2 adds more rules to the mix; however, it feels easier on the whole because the difficulty is less about understanding how to implement the tools and more about finding that one spot where a portal can be placed.

Another game that lacks a difficulty option is The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Typically, the player will find a new item, such as a boomerang or bow, in a dungeon. In order to complete the level, the player must learn to master the new item, which usually is a key component in defeating the boss.

The player will also need to learn how to use the weapon to cross obstacles and on weaker enemies. This method is an efficient way for the player to learn the proper use and benefits of new mechanics that are introduced as the game progresses. It helps contribute to a more immersive experience and adds to the growth of the character through the story.

Unfortunately, designers have a tendency to lean towards artificial or arbitrary forms of difficulty rather than coercing the player to use the knowledge they gained throughout the playthrough to achieve her goal.


Kingdom Hearts contains a perfect example of artificial difficulty. My wife is a major fan of Disney; when we first moved in together while we were engaged, she decided to finish Kingdom Hearts while I was at class. I came home and found her in the heat of battle with Sephiroth.

Now, I hadn’t even known he was in the game, let alone as a boss. I told her I was home and missed her, and she blurted back something along the lines of “missed you, too. Been fighting this guy for two hours. I know the song by heart!” After a good ten more minutes, she uttered a string of expletives, and I realized that those two-plus hours of her play time amounted to nothing. She had lost, and that’s all there was to it.

Nonetheless, she had enjoyed herself -- to the point where I planned to give the game a try based on what she had told me and what I had witnessed. When I reached that part during the game, I decided to give it a chance. I realized why my wife had spent two hours battling this overpowered monstrosity. My keyblade zips across the screen and hits him dead on, and yet, his health doesn’t change. Although I managed to get him to use his attack that cuts you down to 0 MP and 1 HP, I never wasted more than two tries on attempting to defeat him.

Later, I found out that he has an invisible health bar, in addition to his other five. I determined the fight wasn’t worth the time or effort. Eventually, I came face to face with Sephiroth again during my playthrough of Kingdom Hearts 2 and triumphed against him on my first attempt. The battle felt more balanced in this iteration -- largely because of Sora being faster and having a myriad of different abilities that were not available in the previous game.

Another example of how arbitrary difficulty options can be is found in Dragon Age 2. I had started Dragon Age: Origins on normal, and so, I continued the trend in the new game. My wife had played the first game on casual, and so, she repeated the choice in the sequel. She tends to play most games on casual for a lack of time and, as she puts it, lack of skill.

About the time she made it to Kirkwall, she said something I don’t think I’ve ever heard her say before: “This game is too easy.” It turned out that the complete lack of a challenge siphoned out the fun of the game for her. She was capable of utter devastation, and that was with the mere beginnings of the elemental magic tree! A single fireball could obliterate all her enemies and be out of cooldown by the time her next obstacle appeared. For her, there was no planning involved anymore, and so, she ended up completing the game on normal and enjoying it...aside from a particularly harrowing quest.

My playthrough of DA2 was a bit different. I felt that normal was pretty easy in the beginning. I figured that it was designed to be easier at the start. Also, I carefully constructed my teammates as well as my own character, so I expected a little less resistance from the enemies.

While playing the game, I couldn’t help but notice a significant difference between my wife's playthrough and mine: I had more enemies to fight. My archer would be standing in a doorway, shooting arrows at far-off enemies, and suddenly, more faceless goons would appear out of nowhere on top of my avatar. Not only was this destroying the immersion of the game for me, but I was also annoyed that the game felt “difficult” meant me shooting infinite arrows into these buffoons.

This realization demonstrated how useless the difficulty option can be when the designers have not created a proper balance between a player’s knowledge and abilities and the level’s design. If the game does not respect that perfect state of harmony in the beginning, then the player can’t expect a proper difficulty change when she toggles the option in the menu.

In fact, the only time the game actually felt like the difficulty had been ramped up turned out to be the result of a particularly nasty bug: Hawke’s animation speed decreased over time. Since the bug has been patched, I started a new character. He’s remained untouched because without a real challenge, the game loses some of its appeal despite the fact that there are new branches of stories for me to explore.


The best way for designers to institute an intense challenge outside the normal playthrough would be something in the same spirit as Dead Space 2's hardcore difficulty or The Witcher 2's insane difficulty. These optional challenges are complete with warnings and have a strict set of rules.

For instance, with hardcore mode in Dead Space 2, the player is only allotted three saves. As Curly describes, this changes the gameplay entirely. Having not played The Witcher 2, I can only imagine that playing that difficulty setting will also force the player to adopt new strategies -- unless she wishes to start the entire game over because of one tiny mistake. Regardless, each of these examples requires the player to learn how to properly play the game if she wishes to profit from the investment.

The challenge presented by a game shouldn’t be fostered out of enemies with an absurd amount of health or cheap moves. It shouldn’t be having enemies that will appear out of nowhere and are simply annoying to kill rather than entertaining or engaging.

The challenge should come from a game that teaches the player how to utilize its mechanics in order to complete it, which allows her to appreciate the experience as a whole rather than having to exploit her way through something. A game that is designed to have the player grow and learn as much as the character she is controlling is then afforded the opportunity of presenting a challenge. If this requires the player to learn in order to succeed and stays entertaining and engaging, the game has done its job.


This article has been republished from Nightmare Mode.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (7)
Redeye
May 26, 2011

While I agree with the basic sentiment of what you say it's sort of an 'in a perfect world' sentiment. The fact of the matter is that even in some of the most crafted experiences out there the difficulty still is going to not work out for some players. For example: I've never finished a Zelda game because I get stuck halfway through a mid game dungeon on every one in some arcane way (usually overthinking a puzzle when I had simply missed looking at one item that wasn't obvious enough or something like that) and then the fact that I don't really like the game's atmosphere or basic gameplay style catches up with me and I just quit. This happens to me in a lot of games as I have a bad habit of missing minor details that cost me understanding entire puzzles or gameplay mechanics for long streaches of time and I get frustrated (might be a product of ADHD or something like that)

On the other side of things I loved portal 1 and portal 2 and barely ever got stuck in them and always felt motivated to keep trying (except for one or two points in portal 2 where a quirk near the very end of the game caused a lot of frustration but I overcame it). Then you get some people complaining portal and portal 2 are too easy! It's a double edged sword. Some people play for challenge, other people get too frustrated to put up with sticking points and just want to play the game for a fun experience.

In my opinion their is no one size fits all for game design. So your best choice is usually to make a game a bit on the easy side, then provide special challenges or higher difficulty levels to appease gamers hungering for a heavy challenge.

Still it's obvious that just adjusting a cheap enemy spawn in rate or giving enemies too much health just makes the game less satisfying rather then more challenging. So I agree with you there.

Robsavillo
May 27, 2011

You should try out some roguelikes, which is probably one of the "purer" genres out there. All difficulty in those games is derived directly from gameplay -- no tacked-on bonus modifiers at all. I wrote a little bit about that here.

I'm also a big advocate for the Demon's Souls approach, which also does away with difficulty settings completely. Again, like a roguelike, the difficulty comes from the game's mechanics, and understanding those mechanics is how the player achieves victory. The game also forces players to use a single save file that autosaves every ten seconds or so, which effectively means that you can't save/load to undo any errors.

Bhhdicon_copy
May 27, 2011

I can see where you're coming from in termsof the types of games described above, but there is one genre that absolutely need difficulty settings; the Shump. For me, any shooter has to have multiple difficulties in order to get better and better for that high score, especially online. Taking Ikaruga for example, if you can learn the first stage on easy and then play it seriously on normal or hard, you'll get a higher score.

I concede, it's also kind of an artificial lengthener, but then when a game has on average six to seven stages, it's a welcome thing. A lot of players like me enjoy seeing just how good we can get too; I've managed to nearly master U.N. Squadron after "1CC-ing" it on hard, but I'm finding my limit on the hidden "Gamer" difficulty.... for now! =)

Default_picture
May 27, 2011

It seems to me that developers consider pyschology when deciding whether to employ difficulty settings. If a gamer is given the option to choose a difficulty setting, he is much less likely to describe a game as being to difficult. Instead, it would seem to me, that the player would be much more ready to hold himself at fault. That may be why gamers are more ready to describe Demon's Souls as more difficult than say Modern Warfare 2.

Default_picture
May 27, 2011

The first Portal actually lost a few of us along the way who aren't so good at reflex-action.  There were multiple puzzles that I knew the answers to logically, but had an incredibly difficult time completing because I couldn't turn, aim, and shoot while falling (1) accurately and (2) without getting queasy.  The design team removed all of that particular reflex-based kind of challenge from Portal 2, leaving it as pretty much a pure logic game (well, a pure logic comedy) and for me that made it a much more enjoyable experience.

 

Even now, after a couple of years familiarizing myself with a PlayStation controller (I was a PC-only gamer between 1995 and 2008, aside from my DS) I still have a lot of trouble with the kind of quicktime events you get in, say, a God of War boss fight.  As the only difficulty in that sort of event is "can you mash buttons on cue?" I don't feel badly for playing at the lowest difficulty level.  I play games for the mental challenge and to come out of them feeling clever and excited, not to put myself in the place of an actual weapon-weilding maniac, so I don't have my pleasure lessened at all by decreasing the difficulty.

 

But I think it's as much a game-type thing as anything else.  If I were into, say, fighting or racing games?  I can see "difficulty" having more meaning there.  As it is, in adventure or action-adventure or puzzle-type of games, I appreciate the availability of an easy or hint-providing level that I can then feel smug for not using.  ;)

Default_picture
May 27, 2011

I just want to say that if you're going to make the claim that instances like the fight with Sephiroth in Kingdom Hearts are difficult because the designers gave him an absurd amount of health, you should be prepared to defend the demise of health bars altogether. A game is always going to be difficult to someone simply due to the fact that their health bar is only so big, or the enemy's is too big. Extend the player's enough and anyone can beat any game as long as they've at least figured out how to damage their enemy. Even though you may have never had trouble with some of the boss fights in Wind Waker, I guarantee there's someone out there who did, and you could blame that failure on the same arbitrary difficulty present in the Kingdom Hearts example.

I'm not saying developers shouldn't strive to create challenging situations by using engaging gameplay mechanics rather than just beefing up opponents or making the player a weakling, but as long as health exists as more than a binary value, what you're opposing in that example is always going to exist to some degree.

Default_picture
May 28, 2011

I agree that difficulty should derive from the mechanics of a game, and the growing understanding of them over time, but the problem with this is that the audience is way too big and varied to catch everyone with a single net.  Some people found Portal way too easy, and some too hard.  Difficulty settings are meant to fix this in most games.  It doesn't always work, as it can be poorly implemented, but the overall purpose is usually to compensate for the player's skill.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.