The Future of video game difficulty

[melmer]

(i should really be pitching this to EA or Activision, but here goes)

I started thinking recently about the current state of video game difficulty, and how big budget titles are way behind the curve

AAA developers are so scared they'll upset or turn off the casual gamer that we end up with games like Far Cry 3 that are dumbed down and awash with pop-up hints and on screen prompts.

But then we have on the over side of the scale games like 'Dark Souls' which are unapologetically hard, but everyone laps it up.

My personal preference is that i want to experience a game the way the creator intended it to be played, which includes the games difficulty. I don't want a creator to sacrifice their intent through fears of losing a casual gamer and vicariously their word of mouth marketing of the game.

Example: New Devil May Cry will teach casuals the "magic" of pro gaming, entry bar "is very low"

Nobody was holding our hands when we played our very first games 20 years ago, and actually nothing has changed... Peoples first venture in to gaming these days tends to be through mobile or browser based games, games where there is no difficulty setting BUT there is quite often the option to pay to skip a level or make the game easier.

I remember reading an article a year or two ago (i can't find it now) about how Angry Birds makes more money from the 'Might Eagle level skip' in app purchase then they do from people buying the game

The current business model these days for casual games tends to be you pay to make the game easier, and the casual gamer has grown to except it and embraced it.

Why not implement this into big budget console games? Remove the Easy difficulty option and add a similar paid to skip feature.

After you've died 3 times at the same check point a message would pop up:

Would you like to purchase '10mins of GOD MODE' for $1? Yes/No

A simple one click purchase that will enable Infinite health for the next 10 minutes of game play, so people can skip through the section they're finding difficult. This would be a very simple method to boost a game developers revenue.

And why stop there. Day one DLC for Bioshock Infinite

• Infinite Ammo Mode $1.99
  
• Infinite Magic Mode $1.99
  
• Infinite Health Mode $2.99
  

Make these early access purchases to unlockables/modes that became available upon completing the game. The vocal minority hardcore gamer wont have a problem with it as it wont effect them, so no internet shit storm. These are just an optional paid extra to cheat.

And here's the kicker, I believe the type of people who would play through a game with 'Infinite ammo or health' turned on are the type of people who would happily pay for it.

Make finely tuned interactive experiences, and if people can't handle the difficulty, let them pay for easy mode

[youmeyou]

Don't you get unreasonably insulted though, when a game pops up an offer to switch to easy mode when you've been dying a few times? Not to mention, I accidentally switched to easy mode in God of War once and was unable to switch it back without losing my save game. While this solution may appeal to beginner gamers, it doesn't sound like any better a deal for hardcore gamers than the status quo.

Why not just include a super easy mode? I'm kind of skeptical that many of the people playing browser games would even consider making the jump to buying a console to play actual AAA titles.

[melmer]

I haven't really been looking at this from a consumers point of view, as we'll all just have all modes and extras included for free. Thank you!

I've got my business head on, and i'm thinking of the ways games developers could use already tried and tested methods from mobile gaming to help boost their monies

[I_smell]

I think this whole conversation is so broad that it's hard to really come at it.

It feels like you're talking as if this is all Video games- but what you're really talking about is the slice between Call of Duty and something slightly more niche like Dark Souls. The 3 or 4 big blockbuster games that Ubisoft, THQ, 2K and those kinds of publishers put out every year- and looking at all the games I played last year, Mass Effect 3 is the only ONE that's relevant here.

And games used to be impossible a hundred years ago, but actually a lot has changed. Nobody's playing Walking Dead for the puzzles, and there isn't a 25c CONTINUE screen if you die in... anything. People who play Video games are older on average now, and so on etc.

Your solution to this none-problem (Game of the year last year was fucking XCOM by the way) is to ask people who are LESS INVESTED in games than you and me to INVEST MORE. Another way of looking at this idea is that you're asking people to pay for an easy mode, which as standard right now is free.

You can just play the handful of games you're thinking of on Hard. Also I've played DmC and it didn't feel toned down whatsoever. He has basically the same moves as Nero except there's 2 seperate ways to pull enemies, you can switch weapons, there's this Ikaruga thing to watch out for with all the enemies, and the controls are full of context-sensetive switches that if you ask me make it way harder to use.

Long-story short this is not the thread for me!

EDIT-- Also there are ways to DESIGN a gameplay interface that's easy to get into, and then ramps up and gets more interesting. Look at Street Fighter 4!

[melmer]

A couple of years a go i worked for 4 months as a web designer at a company which had websites for everything from PC backup to adult dating, and i slowly discovered that the company wide business plan was pretty much conning money out of the gullible and stupid. Complete scum bags, but i guess that way of thinking rub off on me a bit.

So yeah, absolutely none of this is to benefit the consumer Lets all just be hypothetical Bobby Koticks

Am i a bad person?

I think this whole conversation is so broad that it's hard to really come at it....

Yeah you're absolutely right, this wouldn't work across the board. Some games are meant to be easy, some games are meant to be played for fun. i'm looking at stuff like core shooters or racers, pause the game and pay for additional nitro boost at any point in the race.

If you're creating a 18 rated realistic war simulator, why should you give people the option for it to be easy? Why should war be easy? If someone wants to massacre the population of a small island without a care in the world, let them pay for the privilege

[I_smell]

A couple of years a go i worked for 4 months as a web designer at a company which had websites for everything from PC backup to adult dating, and i slowly discovered that the company wide business plan was pretty much conning money out of the gullible and stupid. Complete scum bags, but i guess that way of thinking rub off on me a bit.

lol that basically same thing happened to me, when I started asking why all my ideas were getting turned down and found out it's because these sites are here to just siphon ad-clicks out of kids and old people who got lost. I almost gave in TO THE DARKNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[syntheticgerbil]

In general I'd like many games to give you jack shit for playing hard (no trophies, no unlockables, nothing) other than the satisfaction of doing so, so that I don't have to.

I would also like less grinding from games in general, which can be part of the difficulty in the way it's difficult to not be bored. I would probably hate playing any Dark Souls type game, so I'm never going to bother.

Increasing any of this is useless I think. I don't have time for video game tedium any more in my life and anything that comes off smooth with a nice learning curve is good enough for me.

Charging micro transactions to make a game easier is just more F2P bullshit that's ruining games now, so I wouldn't doubt that's not far off.

Only thing I agree with you on is less tutorial garbage.

[Nappi]

Make these early access purchases to unlockables/modes that became available upon completing the game. The vocal minority hardcore gamer wont have a problem with it as it wont effect them, so no internet shit storm. These are just an optional paid extra to cheat.

Right.. Except when the rumors start circulating that chapter 7 is so difficult because the greedy developers wanted more money from the micro-transactions.

[melmer]

This was all born from a good place! I promise

I was thinking about 'The Last of Us' and how I hoped it would be a gritty and brutal survival game. And I hoped naughty dog wouldn't give into the idea of drunken frat boys not liking their game because it wasn't a COD clone.

"I had to kill 6 dudes but they only gave me a gun with 2 bullets, this games sucks!"

So I thought if someone wants to play 'The Last of Us' as a shooter, let them. They can pay an additional $2.99 for the EXtreme pack which gives them an assault rifle and unlimited ammo to blaze through the entire game.

[TychoCelchuuu]

This is like selling an alternate cut of slow, intellectual movie that has the pacing sped up and a voiceover added to explain everything for dumb people.

[youmeyou]

I think this problem stems from nice looking games requiring gargantuan budgets to cover production thus needing to recoup massive sums of money to make a profit. But that seems to be changing, with new game engines coming out all the time that are much cheaper and easier to interact with like Unity and even the latest Unreal Engine. It's very much like the revolution in digital video that made it possible to make beautiful stuff in the film world without paying for hyper-expensive equipment.

So what I think is, let's let AAA games be, hopefully the technology will allow indies to look as cool and then those of us who cherish innovative narratives and gameplay will have something to care about. Just as those of us who want more than the next "2 hours of explosions" blockbuster can look to indie films.

[melmer]

Right.. Except when the rumors start circulating that chapter 7 is so difficult because the greedy developers wanted more money from the micro-transactions.

I know, it's a slippery slope. That angry birds article (I wish I could find it) stated that the game instead of having a gentle difficulty curve, purposefully had random difficulty spikes all throughout the game so people would have to buy the special level skip bird

This isn't the future, this happened 2 years ago. This is how Rovio made their millions. It just hasn't worked it way into your console yet

[melmer]

This is like selling an alternate cut of slow, intellectual movie that has the pacing sped up and a voiceover added to explain everything for dumb people.

I thought of this as well albeit from another angle, filming an extended version of a difficult to follow movie where every 30 mins there's an additional scene where all the actors stop what they're doing and painstakingly go over everything that has happened in the movie up till that point "you see the alien goo turns people into zombies or something"

[TychoCelchuuu]

Yeah, one or the other (or both or whatever).

[osmosisch]

I would also like less grinding from games in general, which can be part of the difficulty in the way it's difficult to not be bored. I would probably hate playing any Dark Souls type game, so I'm never going to bother.

Are these statements meant to be connected? Dark souls requires zero grinding. Unless you see having to retry a section that you failed at to be a form of grinding.

[I_smell]

I played Dark Souls and I practically didn't switch armour for the first half of the game. The difficulty totally came from the natural system of having tense high-stakes one-hit sword fights.

Then in the second half of the game, once I'd fully figured out the combat, it actually did turn into me just levelling up enough to chip down guys with giant health bars, and I didn't bother finishing it. But the first half was great!

[Sno]

I will second Dark Souls never being a grind, i never felt like i had to go level up a bunch to take on a boss.

The solution to a difficult boss was never to grind stats and gear, but to explore new tactics and strategies.

That said, it is very possible to create a bad character build in that game, and that can definitely bite you in the ass. (It's nothing particularly arcane, you just need to have a clear understanding of what the various character stats actually do, rather than what you think they should do.)

[juv3nal]

AAA developers are so scared they'll upset or turn off the casual gamer that we end up with games like Far Cry 3 that are dumbed down and awash with pop-up hints and on screen prompts.

...

My personal preference is that i want to experience a game the way the creator intended it to be played, which includes the games difficulty. I don't want a creator to sacrifice their intent through fears of losing a casual gamer and vicariously their word of mouth marketing of the game.

I dunno, I think you're mixing two things together here (tutorialization/reminders/hints versus difficulty). I'll generally play a game on easy (I mean I'll start on normal and shift down once I die/fail a bunch of times in the same spot, so I guess it has probably happened that a game can be legitimately easy enough on normal that I haven't had to do this, but nothing comes to mind...on games where it doesn't let you switch on the fly, I'll pick the easier setting right away), but I still have little patience for over tutorialization/reminders/hints.

Don't you get unreasonably insulted though, when a game pops up an offer to switch to easy mode when you've been dying a few times?

I feel like the real way forward for difficulty is something like Left 4 Dead's AI Director/dynamic difficulty if it's done right. I mean it's probably impossible to please everyone with an algorithmic approach, but properly tuned I think you could please the vast majority that way.

[sclpls]

I like today's XCOM update as an example of what I like to see in future game designs, where you can alter the difficulty along many different lines rather than the more typical mode of simply increasing the number of enemies; make them tougher/more lethal. Of course that sort of modularity works better for some game designs than others. A game like Dark Souls probably needs a singular, specific type of difficulty if the game design/experience is to work at all.

[osmosisch]

I played Dark Souls and I practically didn't switch armour for the first half of the game. The difficulty totally came from the natural system of having tense high-stakes one-hit sword fights.

Then in the second half of the game, once I'd fully figured out the combat, it actually did turn into me just levelling up enough to chip down guys with giant health bars, and I didn't bother finishing it. But the first half was great!

Unless I misunderstood, you at least didn't figure out the combat far enough to realise that upgrading weapons has a much, much greater effect on your damage output than increasing your stats! That's a pretty common mistake though.

Either way, the later bosses do have a lot more health but they are all eminently beatable without leveling up. It just requires a lot more skill than most people are prepared to acquire (including myself I'll be the first to admit). Only the Four Kings are a possible exception.

[feelthedarkness]

I find that some genuine difficulty does a lot to mask elements of a game that might grate or grow tedious otherwise. I'm thinking of Spec Ops and both Dragon Ages specifically. I can see, and understand people's complaints about the short comings of the action, but when you're scraping through sections that gets tamped down a bit.

Maybe it's manipulative? I sort of felt that about Hotline Miami at times, but that urge to get it right is so strong.