Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
An Argument for Difficulty
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
View All     RSS
April 25, 2014
arrowPress Releases
April 25, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





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


 
An Argument for Difficulty
by Nick Halme on 11/27/12 04:25:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

The match begins, and I am running besides a gaggle of other players. All of us are Russian soldiers, and this is, I think, somewhere like Stalingrad. Somewhere across a snowy courtyard, in big distant buildings, hewn out of stern-looking Soviet concrete, there are players acting as German soldiers.

Sure enough, about thirty seconds in and my screen flashes red. I've been hit by a bullet. I'm not dead, so I duck down behind a low wall and bandage myself. I peak up above the barrier and watch one of my teammates exchange fire with the Germans from behind a defunct fountain until he is shot in the neck and crumples.

I stay behind my little wall, peeking up just long enough each time to hear a bullet whiz past or pit into concrete nearby. Soon I see the little black helmets of German soldiers, snaking through the far corners of the courtyard. They've stalled us here, and everyone is either brave and dead or scared and hunkered down in this courtyard. It was our job to advance on them, but now they're coming to finish us off.

Plumes of dirt and snow erupt nearby; the Germans are throwing their stielgranates (those old German grenades-on-a-stick that gamers know so well).

I have a sniper rifle - one of the few allowed on any team. I have not been doing my job, which should have been looking for the German snipers and riflemen. Maybe this situation could have been prevented if I had spent more time looking through my scope and less time keeping a low profile.

I crawl along the length of the low wall and pop my head up - I spot a German setting up a machinegun on the low wall opposite mine, on the other side of the courtyard. I hold the key to steady my "breathing" and send a bullet spiralling into his head, courtesy my mosin-nagant rifle.

I feel like I've helped. But I know I'm dead. They're closing in around me, and I'm sure I might be the only Russian soldier left on the field.

I get up and mantle over the low wall I've been using for cover, and start to sprint. Unfortunately I catch a bullet, and drop to the ground dead.

Red Orchestra (the second, in this case) is a prime example of the sort of fear that death creates. It's difficult to stay alive, and it's just as difficult to prevent your enemies from staying alive. Iron sights are small, you don't move like Superman, and you can't take a beating like the Man of Steel either. That's not to berate the sort of speed-freak gun-arena Call of Duty has become, but it's a sort of gameplay that puts an emphasis on death - not just failure but the real fear of being caught out of cover and ended.

All this gets me thinking of the futility that is "hard" difficulty in games. As part of my weaseling my way into design during my time at Relic, I ended up doing some difficulty tuning for Space Marine. Of course, difficulty was an afterthought - one of those things that's supposed to pop up on your user interface when you start the game. So we tinkered with weapon-based attributes - things like weapon effectiveness at different ranges, camera recoil per shot, lock-on stickiness, and all those sorts of things. I believe character health was locked, due to inherent values in mission scripts.

And this is along the lines of what most games do - shooters at least - in an effort to tune difficulty. You twist the dials and turn the knobs to try and develop a bit of a different feel - to cause the player to approach things differently on the different difficulty settings. Hopefully players selecting "Easy" will be able to run up to a bad guy and pump him full of lead. Players on "Normal" will have to be careful - but not too careful. And players using "Hard" will have to eliminate any sloppiness in their death-dealing.

I hope it worked for players, but I really don't know. I'm acutely aware that nothing organic existed to ratchet difficulty. That is, "Hard" was really just "Normal" with a different set of numbers being called.

What would have been ideal, if unrealistic given budget and time, is, essentially, a bit of a different game altogether. New enemy types. More enemies. No crosshair, or ammo display (this was proposed, actually).

I'm not one of those people who really gets off on difficulty and death. I played and enjoyed Super Meat Boy, but didnt finish it. I'll watch other people play Demon's Souls, but I won't play it (I'd have a heart attack, I think). My modus operandi is not "make everything really hard". But what does interest me is creating difficulty without relying soley on numbers. The numbers are vital, but they're only the beginning.

Of course part of the issue right now is: why invest more time and money into a difficulty setting - what returns are you getting by doing so? That's pretty muddy, and I have no idea, but that's not the point of this thought experiment.

I don't know about you, but these days, when I'm finished a single player game, I don't go back and restart the game on a higher difficulty. And I sure as hell don't begin the game on the highest difficulty.

I remember someone mentioning that Infinity Ward recommended playing their games on the harder diffculties. And I remember the counter-argument: "But the cinematic moments and the tension are gone, when you're dying and respawning every couple minutes. Play it on Normal, so you're constantly almost dying."

After all, it makes more sense - Call of Duty doesn't recognize death in its gameworld. The player's death is not acknowledged. As far as the game and its story are concerned, the elite operatives you play as don't get scratched up by all that ammunition being thrown their way. You die when the story tells you to die, not when you actually do.

So why would you strip away the illusion by cranking up the damage numbers, and improving enemy accuracy? You no longer feel elite - you're not Superman any more. You're frighteningly mortal in a battlefield set up for a Superman to conquer.

The problem with difficulty is inherent. More and more we are seeing games that are just difficult. Every system is maintained so as to produce difficulty - and as a result tension, satisfaction, fear, and probably a longer play-time.

It's a bit of a conundrum. The most effective way to increase difficulty is to change basic designs. Change animation times to make them more punitive. Make enemies inherently more dangerous. Just look at Demon's Souls - the modern game designer sees a broken game with a lot of user-experience problems. The result, however, is a fun experience for people who want to be challenged to learn a difficult, clunky system (and master it).

You can't really do this as a difficulty setting. All that additional data, and the work required to create it, may be untenable in terms of a real production schedule.

But maybe this means that modern game design really needs to re-think itself. We value user-experience over challenging design, which is really at the heart of any game. It's difficult to catch the person who is "It" in a game of tag. Scoring a goal in hockey is difficult. Blocking a goal in hockey is a challenging prospect. Hitting the ball in baseball is fear-inducing to me. But we don't generally look at these "real" games as overly difficult. Nobody worries that people will be scared to play on the company softball team because it's too difficult. To me, softball is exponentially more difficult than a game of Red Orchestra - but game publishers are pretty sure that Red Orchestra would scare the shit out of your "average" gamer.

I'd like to argue that, really, the solution is to make inherently more challenging games. People can handle it. And it's easier to make games easier, than it is to make an easy game more difficult.

We're really caught up with the idea of "immersion". Cut-scenes, scripted sequences, etc. But our brains are pretty simple machines when it comes to image processing. We aren't really that discerning - just watch someone become immersed in a game of Doom these days. It looks terribly unconvincing. But it's really, really goddamn hard when compared to most of today's games. That alone makes you forget that what you're staring at looks more like a highschool art class diorama than a real world depiction of demons and space stations. Look at how effective Hotline Miami is at roping you in, despite its crude graphics. The fact is, humans in general excel at learning and thinking in patterns. And that's what a "game" should really be.

A good example is looking at any Call of Duty's singleplayer campaign and then at its multiplayer component. Often the players who enjoy singleplayer don't venture into multiplayer, and the players using the game as their multiplayer fix might not even boot up the campaign. To a lot of people, Call of Duty is not its highly-scripted singleplayer but its insane multiplayer. In fact, those who remember CoD 1 and CoD 2 will remember that the singeplayer was really not the focus.

Tune into any match of CoD and you'll see hell on earth. I once charted a session of deathmatch on Shipment, which is a tiny box of a level broken up by nothing but smaller boxes (shipment containers).

My average time spent alive was very small, and if I recall correctly was somewhere under thirty seconds. Shipment is a hyperbolic level, but it's not so different. The game is very fast, and players in general are crack shots. In transitioning from singleplayer to multiplayer the game transforms from an illusory Disney ride into a world of wild-west quickdraws ad nauseam. Multiplayer is effectively the game's real "Hard" difficulty. And it's an entirely different beast. And maybe that's a more realistic way to think about difficulty - what it is, and how it really comes about in games.


Related Jobs

Nexon America, Inc.
Nexon America, Inc. — El Segundo , California, United States
[04.24.14]

Web Designer - Temporary - 3 month
Darkside Game Studios
Darkside Game Studios — Sunrise, Florida, United States
[04.24.14]

Mid-Senior Graphics Programmer
Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — LONDON, Ontario, Canada
[04.24.14]

UI ARTIST/DESIGNER
Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — LONDON, Ontario, Canada
[04.24.14]

UI ARTIST/DESIGNER






Comments


Bisse Mayrakoira
profile image
When it comes to single player difficulty, I think many designers are missing this: you have to design the mechanics in a way that doesn't break the hardest difficulty, and fine-tune the hardest difficulty first. Other difficulty levels can be derived from the hardest, but going in the other direction is stupid. The hardest difficulty needs the most delicate balancing, because players will be operating closer to their limits; they have the least slack to deal with difficulty spikes, and any mechanical design issues that would be an annoyance on easier difficulties can kill the experience on hardest difficulty.

For some reason, designers seem to have mostly understood the same thing when it comes to multiplayer. You must balance for the best players first, and afterwards you can still shuffle things around and add things that make the game more inviting and accessible to low-level players, *if you take care that those alterations keep the high-end balance mostly invariant*.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
"I'd like to argue that, really, the solution is to make inherently more challenging games. People can handle it. And it's easier to make games easier, than it is to make an easy game more difficult."

Everything I was going to say.

Nick Halme
profile image
I agree, excellent point!

Devin McCamey
profile image
Creativity in creating difficulty can be seen in "Legend of Grimrock" it's got an "old-school mode" that removes the map from the game and places emphasis on using a compass and pen/paper to chart your way. Things like that, are a great way to create difficulty. Remove some of the crutches people take for granted like the ammo counter or crosshair.

Martin Juranek
profile image
1)
Imo removing "standard" gui elements is not good idea except for imersion/fear in general. It adds annoyance and not difficulty.

2)
I hate bullet sponge difficulty approach (on easy, player is bullet sponge, he soaks bullets and goes on and enemies are fragile), on hard its reversed and usualy on normal game is not annoying but usualy too easy.
Another problem of bullet sponge difficulty is, that on different difficulties game playes much different.
Eg. (hypothetical strawman game) it takes 10s to close to melee distance. On easy any hit from rifle takes him down. On normal you need sniper rifle headshot and on hard you use melee, or excessive kiting/hiding and or exploit poor AI.

Robert Marney
profile image
Removing GUI elements can work well if the GUI is itself a source of lowered difficulty. In Prince of Persia '08, for instance, there is a large, obvious HUD cue for each required action during platforming; removing these would require the player to figure out which of their many actions can be used to complete the segment, making the game harder without requiring any changed numbers.

Jesse Tucker
profile image
A lot of games simply crank up the numbers when it comes to increasing the difficulty. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although success depends greatly on the game's design systems. By the time you get to the hardest difficulty, the player should be required to have mastery of many facets of the game and high proficiency of the rest. It's also important that those masteries aren't trivialized or negated once the difficulty ramps up.
In reference to one of my favorite games, Metal Arms: A Glitch In The System, you could walk away successfully from most encounters on easy by taking adequate cover and shooting in the general direction of the enemies. By the time you get to hard, it's critical that you approach situations with caution. However, there are design systems in place that allow hard mode to become far more interesting than easy or normal, even if the only difference is tweaking damage and enemy accuracy. On easy, the systems are glossed over for the most part, but by the time you get to hard you find that you must rely heavily on them. Enemies take limb damage, and you can cause enemy robot parts to malfunction or even come off. Disabling a robot's grenade-throwing arm can cause the robot to drop the grenade at its feet, blowing up itself and neighboring enemy robots in the process. Misdirecting enemy robots so you can sneak up and take one over becomes a necessary maneuver instead of a fun diversion. Many of the levels are set up like puzzles as well, giving you the opportunity to try multiple approaches before coming to one that works. Once you play the game on hard, it becomes obvious that it was carefully crafted to be played that way. Easier difficulty levels don't demand that the player uses his or her full arsenal.

Thom Q
profile image
As someone who's not in his 20's anymore, I remember games where there was no diffuclty setting, they were just hard by default. This to such an extent that games like Silver Surfer gained notoriety for being difficult.

Eventually software producers started implementing difficulty settings as a way to accommodate players, and give their game replay value.

After the 2000's this became the industry standard, along with very helpful Tutorials. 10 years later, now with the market being over saturated with cloned games & gameplay, developers seem to kind of ignore difficulty settings. Actually, they are kind of broken as they are now (harder basicly means NPCs that have more health, weapons that do less damage, etc) The games are build to be very easy by default, so that someone that never played a game before has a small learning curve. The tutorials reflect this as well, all are set up to direct someone that hasn't played a game in the last 10 years.

"Difficult" games now are back to being Difficult on their own. Some don't even have difficulty settings anymore. Unfortunately this means that those games have to have another Gamay to them, then the AAA norm. This can also be a blessing in disguise though, since most of us know that the more money you throw at a project, whether it be a game or even a movie, the more of a Average product you get, since it has to appeal to a broad a audience it can muster.

I for one play (most) games at their hardest setting. Not dying / having to start over doesn't fulfill me in the slightest. If there's no challenge, I could have just watched a movie :)

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
Yep.


none
 
Comment: