Difficulty in Games

Post by **Jeff-20** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:26 pm

What do you think is the greater sin, a game that is too easy or a game that is too hard?

I have trouble adjusting the difficult curve in my own games because as I test it, I become better at playing. The difficulty is often too hard. Yet, msny games I do not enjoy are judge so because they are far too easy and get boring before the challenge kicks in. I could think of a dozen commercial games I do not like because they fall on either end of the difficulty extreme.

Most VIC games have a difficult adjustment option, but I usually do not like having so much freedom because I don't know what should be considered "normal" when going for high scores, advanced levels, etc. It is a difficult aesthetic. . . Any thoughts?

gklinger · Post by **gklinger** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:50 pm

I'm not very good at games so I tend to give up if a game is too hard. I use to keep hammering away until I realized I was supposed to be having fun and not pulling out the hair I don't have. With that being said, if a game really engages me, I'll never give up. That's what separates games I like from games I love.

Personally, I'm not against having difficulty settings. It would be cool if a game had a default difficulty setting and only allowed the user to make the game easier if they had played on the standard setting a few times and failed to get past some benchmark. Does that make sense?

Bacon · Post by **Bacon** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:10 am

gklinger wrote:I'm not very good at games so I tend to give up if a game is too hard.

Ditto. That's the reason I only ever finished three games on my C64 as a teenager (Fort Apocalypse, Beach Head II, and Commando), at least as far as I remember. Many if not most games from the 80s are too hard for me; I get frustrated and/or bored after dying the 20th time fifteen seconds into the game. So I prefer too easy over too hard.

A difficulty adjustment option is a good thing for the kind of gamer I am. I don't really care about high scores and such. I just play to have fun.

zhx · Post by **zhx** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:45 am

Too easy isn't really an issue if the game has good pacing. I can think of several games that don't put up much of a fight, but are nice and lengthy and fun to play. For example, I never died in LoZ:Twilight Princess on Wii, but that's not to say it was "easy" or "not fun".

I think a lot of those games from the 80's, many lacking the depth or length that modern games do, had to purposefully be made frustratingly hard to make you felt like you got your money's worth. For example, my friend and I went through Spike's Peak today, which gets really cheap near the end. Theoretically you could go straight through that game in probably about 4 minutes, but the last two levels are so unfair, it takes several times that, and we died about a billion times before we got through it. To me, that is not my idea of fun, and the only reason we continued playing was because we didn't want the game to "win". As soon as we got to the top of the mountain and beat the game, I wanted to rip the game out of the system and throw it into the wall.

Still, a game with a good challenge that isn't CHEAP feels much more rewarding to beat. I remember, very distinctly, the sense of accomplishment I felt when I finally beat Ninja Gaiden (NES). The designers, programmers and playtesters just have to work together to balance the game correctly.

Post by **Jeff-20** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:45 am

Spike's Peak is slightly better on the Atari, but frustrating on any platform. Technically, the final level is the flagging ceremony on the mountain top. The first time I played as a kid, I died from frost bit just pixels away from planting the flag. Of course I kept trying, but I feel a player should never win a game with a feeling of resentment.

zhx · Post by **zhx** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:59 pm

Yeah, that was our problem. We'd get 5 pixels away from the top of the mountain and die. Of course, we didn't have a manual, so we didn't understand the "body temperature" meter at the top. After several times of dying at the top, we decided that that meter must mean "oxygen". We were wrong, but I think oxygen makes more sense.

Finally, through more trial and error, we learned that the flashing dots in the ice level restore your body temperature meter, but that the last screen requires a completely filled meter. It was then just more trial and error to successfully grab the highest flashing dot and get to the top of the screen without that infuriating snowball knocking us down.

SO annoying, but I'm glad we finally beat it.

Post by **Jeff-20** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:09 am

Is anyone particularly annoyed by games that are too easy? Or build up difficulty at too slow of a pace.

carlsson · Post by **carlsson** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:12 am

Yes, sometimes. Like when I play test some MiniGame entries and it seems to be same old level after level until suddenly it becomes impossible. On the other hand difficulty shouldn't increase too quickly, that also makes it frustrating. I'm not very good myself at finding the right balance of difficulty in the games I make, but I try to think about it.

Post by **Jeff-20** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:16 am

Obviously, as you make a game, you also play test it, and eventually get pretty good. I think it's almost impossible for a programmer to really assess the difficulty of a game.

rhurst · Post by **rhurst** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:47 am

Jeff-20 wrote:Is anyone particularly annoyed by games that are too easy? Or build up difficulty at too slow of a pace.

Heh, wait 10-years and try to play those games again -- it'll play harder for certain!

My father turned 70 last month -- 25+ years ago, he used to play Ladybug and Mr. Do! on ColecoVision and Pac-Man on Atari 2600 for HOURS on end, day after day, which was really annoying to hear those sounds and tunes burning out my brain cells. Well, I hooked up some old consoles to a TV and made him sit down to play them again. HA! It was so funny watching him struggle -- could not clear the 1st level. I took a digital picture of that event as a keepsake -- it never gets old!

English Invader · Post by **English Invader** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:57 am

My father is 62 and has an XBox 360. He particularly likes the Grand Theft Auto games.

Bizarrely, I'm the one who prefers the retro-scene.

theSmiths · Post by **theSmiths** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:43 am

Jeff-20 wrote:Is anyone particularly annoyed by games that are too easy? Or build up difficulty at too slow of a pace.

Yes good point!
I actually give up on a game that can be too easy...
Just walking through the game is not really a game at all!

Games are supposed to be a challenge,that's the fun and thrill of it.

Making a Game that's in the middle is ideal but Difficult.
Some people complete games quicker than others.

To be honest if i had to choose between HARD or EASY....
I would have to go with HARD

formater · Post by **formater** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:11 am

If you must select only one hard is better, but is the game is very hard and never pass in the same point of the game, it is very disappointing.

A option for change the difficulty are always appraised, and all the programmers must have in your minds who a balanced difficulty are as important than graphics or velocity in the game.

theSmiths · Post by **theSmiths** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:49 am

Yep i'm with you all the way there formater
If you can change the Difficulty Then PERFECT!

Post by **Jeff-20** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:23 pm

I'm really annoyed by Vic games that require the user to enter a difficulty level with no idea of what would be a normal setting. Just "enter a number 1-100" or something like that.

I'm also unsure of games with both a difficulty option and high score record. It doesn't seem to be a fair challenge.