Network now...BLOG
The Importance of Being Easy
Two entries ago, I wrote about my reluctance to even start playing certain games. The flipside of that is completing a game once I’ve fired it up. Many factors play into this, but assuming that the game in question passes my quality threshold, how it handles difficulty is a fairly accurate indicator of whether or not I’ll ultimately finish it. (Yes, I might be more motivated to finish what I start if I actually had to buy most of my own games – don’t cry for me, Hyrule – but that’s another topic for another column.)
You might say: “If you’re having a hard time on medium, why not just drop down to easy?” The problem is that I don’t trust most developers when it comes to the dark arts of game balance. In my ten years covering videogames, I’ve rarely heard developers spend much time discussing the effort that’s gone into creating a compelling easy setting. I’m more apt to hear them talk about the challenges that they’ve crafted at the other end of the spectrum: expert, veteran, legendary, hardcore, survivor, nightmare.
That’s somewhat understandable: developers themselves have historically been hardcore gamers, as have their most avid and vocal fans. But even as the demographics of gamers continue to broaden, as publishers beat their chests about misleading talking points like ‘videogames are bigger than Hollywood boxoffice’, too many developers still believe that the Platonic ideal of ‘gamer’ is the hardcore gamer of old; according this philosophy, the skill level of all gamers is some portion of that ideal gamer.
But this philosophy isn’t nuanced enough to properly accommodate the various strata of gamers that now exist. (Boston Phoenix reviewer Mitch Krpata, on his blog Insult Swordfighting, has compiled an excellent series of posts under the title A New Taxonomy of Gamers that devises several new ways to label gamers that go beyond ‘casual’ and ‘core’; it’s definitely worth checking out.)
I’ve written before in this space about the need for developers to rethink challenge, progression and difficulty in videogames. But the point that I’d like to focus on now is this: what sense does it make to continue to design games in such a way that many people who buy them can’t, won’t or don’t finish them? Or, put another way, how many more games would be sold if people knew without a shadow of a doubt that they’d be capable of finishing every game they started?
That’s what I liked most about the Vita-Chamber save system in BioShock which revived players without restoring the health of the enemies. It cued me to understand that no matter how challenging the game got on medium – no matter how the difficulty might spike along the way – I’d be able to complete it before dedication devolved into drudgery. In fact, as I play review code for the PS3 version, the gently-encouraging-without-being-an unfair-cakewalk Vita-Chambers are motivating me to replay the game – this time as a rescuer rather than a harvester of the Little Sisters – on a harder difficulty setting. Yet several gamers criticised the Vita-Chambers for making the game too easy to complete; a subsequent patch gave them the option to turn off the Vita-Chambers for a stricter challenge. And while I’m selfishly focused on the easy end of the difficulty curve, I agree with those gamers that we should all have more power to tailor each title to the specific type of challenge that each of us is seeking, whether that’s harder or easier.
Too many games ask us to choose a difficulty setting before we’ve experienced a single second of gameplay. That doesn’t make much sense considering that the first levels of a game teach us how it should be played. Some, like Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, use an initial training mission to determine a recommended difficulty setting, while others, like God Of War, ask us if we want to switch to an easier setting after repeated deaths at the same point in the game. Those are both improvements, but there’s still plenty of room for developers to get better.
Why not use Xbox 360 Achievement and/or PlayStation 3 Trophy data from other titles that a gamer has played in the same genre to better determine an initial difficulty setting? Why not let us change the difficulty setting between dying and resuming play? (Tomb Raider: Underworld is doing this, with granular user-adjustable settings for player health, enemy health and more.) Why not have a No Fail/Travelling/God Mode – not locked off, not as a cheat code, but as an option that users can select from the main menu – for story-based games and other non-puzzle-based games so that even players of little ability can finish the game. You know, the game we spent a chunk of cash to buy. Some of us want to be entertained, some engaged, some challenged and some punished, but we all want to complete the game in a satisfying manner. So help us help you help us to do so.
You might say: “If you’re having a hard time on medium, why not just drop down to easy?” The problem is that I don’t trust most developers when it comes to the dark arts of game balance. In my ten years covering videogames, I’ve rarely heard developers spend much time discussing the effort that’s gone into creating a compelling easy setting. I’m more apt to hear them talk about the challenges that they’ve crafted at the other end of the spectrum: expert, veteran, legendary, hardcore, survivor, nightmare.
That’s somewhat understandable: developers themselves have historically been hardcore gamers, as have their most avid and vocal fans. But even as the demographics of gamers continue to broaden, as publishers beat their chests about misleading talking points like ‘videogames are bigger than Hollywood boxoffice’, too many developers still believe that the Platonic ideal of ‘gamer’ is the hardcore gamer of old; according this philosophy, the skill level of all gamers is some portion of that ideal gamer.
But this philosophy isn’t nuanced enough to properly accommodate the various strata of gamers that now exist. (Boston Phoenix reviewer Mitch Krpata, on his blog Insult Swordfighting, has compiled an excellent series of posts under the title A New Taxonomy of Gamers that devises several new ways to label gamers that go beyond ‘casual’ and ‘core’; it’s definitely worth checking out.)
I’ve written before in this space about the need for developers to rethink challenge, progression and difficulty in videogames. But the point that I’d like to focus on now is this: what sense does it make to continue to design games in such a way that many people who buy them can’t, won’t or don’t finish them? Or, put another way, how many more games would be sold if people knew without a shadow of a doubt that they’d be capable of finishing every game they started?
That’s what I liked most about the Vita-Chamber save system in BioShock which revived players without restoring the health of the enemies. It cued me to understand that no matter how challenging the game got on medium – no matter how the difficulty might spike along the way – I’d be able to complete it before dedication devolved into drudgery. In fact, as I play review code for the PS3 version, the gently-encouraging-without-being-an unfair-cakewalk Vita-Chambers are motivating me to replay the game – this time as a rescuer rather than a harvester of the Little Sisters – on a harder difficulty setting. Yet several gamers criticised the Vita-Chambers for making the game too easy to complete; a subsequent patch gave them the option to turn off the Vita-Chambers for a stricter challenge. And while I’m selfishly focused on the easy end of the difficulty curve, I agree with those gamers that we should all have more power to tailor each title to the specific type of challenge that each of us is seeking, whether that’s harder or easier.
Too many games ask us to choose a difficulty setting before we’ve experienced a single second of gameplay. That doesn’t make much sense considering that the first levels of a game teach us how it should be played. Some, like Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, use an initial training mission to determine a recommended difficulty setting, while others, like God Of War, ask us if we want to switch to an easier setting after repeated deaths at the same point in the game. Those are both improvements, but there’s still plenty of room for developers to get better.
Why not use Xbox 360 Achievement and/or PlayStation 3 Trophy data from other titles that a gamer has played in the same genre to better determine an initial difficulty setting? Why not let us change the difficulty setting between dying and resuming play? (Tomb Raider: Underworld is doing this, with granular user-adjustable settings for player health, enemy health and more.) Why not have a No Fail/Travelling/God Mode – not locked off, not as a cheat code, but as an option that users can select from the main menu – for story-based games and other non-puzzle-based games so that even players of little ability can finish the game. You know, the game we spent a chunk of cash to buy. Some of us want to be entertained, some engaged, some challenged and some punished, but we all want to complete the game in a satisfying manner. So help us help you help us to do so.
Bero: I really see what you’re saying in your post, and agree with most of it, but this nearly made me do a spit take:
“Or, to paraphrase this: if you do not understand Joyce, maybe you should think about what is wrong with you and where you should improve yourself and not what is wrong with the book and where it should be changed.”
That statement really concerns me! I read some of Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake” and I thought the evocative, freeform language was wonderful and took a lot of nerve. I don’t think that “understanding” the book makes you somehow smarter, though; perhaps it’s just not for everyone. I worry in particular because that statement takes a matter of opinion—whether or not you liked a book!—and tries to use it to reflect how smart someone is. That’s extremely dangerous territory. I loved Serial Experiments Lain—it’s my favorite anime ever—even though it seems simply to confuse most people who see it. Meanwhile, I hated Lost in Translation, thinking that Bill Murray’s blank stare really didn’t communicate anything and that the whole film was a shallow piece of dreck. If someone disagrees with me, it doesn’t mean they’re less smart, it means they took away something different from these works.
I’m worried because the statement “you’re not good enough” could be used to excuse any complete pile of a work, something missing Joyce’s depth and skill, and dismiss anyone’s opinion as being from the unwashed masses. It would also mean that no game could ever be simply too difficult or obtuse (or not fun), but that only players could somehow “fail” the game. I certainly hope we are the masters of our works, and not the other way around.
Fantastic article - and very true.
I have a career, and although I was hardcore as a young teen, I have no time to continually repeat sections in games with silly controls or ridiculous punishing difficulty spikes.
Keep the normal and higher difficulty levels for those that want them, and for my second playthrough, but make sure that there's a mode that allows me to play a game through to its completion without giving up due to games begin designed for lifeless geeks only.
I don't have time to play 20hr games in 1-2 weeks, and if I continually fail to see the end of games as happened during the last gen, and is happening now, then my full-price purchases will drop and I'll simply buy preowneds at less than £20 each.
Not great for the charts or the game sales, considering I'm one of the big money game spenders that the industry needs to keep.
"When a feature allows the casual gamer to play through the same game without too much trouble, the aforementioned crowd gets angry and says that the game was dumbed down or made too easy."
That's very, very true.
I agree with Nick and others - achievements are an excellent way of giving those who need them bragging rights, whilst not preventing gamers with less time or patience for the repetition variety of "challenge" from enjoying a game and getting to see what it has to offer.
Frankly, the crowd that defines their enjoyment of a game on other people's non-enjoyment of it, are the last people that developers who want their games to sell should be listening to.
Great article, N'Gai, and I definitely agree that -- as the industry opens itself up to the masses -- games need to be finish-able above all else. There's nothing wrong with presenting a challenge for the longtime (i.e., "hardcore") gamer, but unless the title in question is supposed to be balls-hard (e.g., Ikaruga, Mega Man 9), everyone should be able to get through it.
However, I don't think analyzing a gamer's Achievements/Trophies is a plausible way to gauge difficulty. First off, I've owned a PS3 since December 2006, but I still haven't unlocked a single Trophy -- it's just that none of the games I've played on my console happen to support the system yet. Secondly, that kind of "you provide this input, we'll adjust the difficulty accordingly" system would likely be really hard to pull off in practice. For example, EA Tiburon tried it with Madden NFL 09 and failed miserably.
Dynamic difficulty adjustment, when done right, is a great option. Max Payne did it on the fly in the background, so if you were kicking ass, it would scale the enemy A.I. up (and vice versa) -- and I didn't even know it was there in that game until someone told me. Of course, there's probably some floor for the A.I. difficulty in that game, so I don't know if anyone could beat it, but it worked well enough.
Although I usually enjoy your articles, I feel this one misses the point entirely. Or, more precisely, hits the point squarely but with the premise that I do not accept.
The game is an experience for me, and if somebody crafts this experience in a certain way, changing a part of it (and difficulty level is an important part) it would mean changing the experience. Try taking a book and making it easier to read for everybody with changing the sentences to six words max. And only short words please. Or make a movie where actors pause after every scene to explain their motives and intentions. Would this take fun out of almost everything for everybody trying to use the 'easier' version? I think it would.
Let's be clear on this: including the difficulty level has only ever been the tool for publishers to make a game sale-able to bigger audience. The developer usually aims for one experience and creates the game with one difficulty level in mind.
What we really need is clear separation between games made for children, for young adults and for adults. And control systems to match. Than if you cannot play a game - it means this game is not for you.
Or, to paraphrase this: if you do not understand Joyce, maybe you should think about what is wrong with you and where you should improve yourself and not what is wrong with the book and where it should be changed.
Every entertainment medium is in the end a way to give the user pleasure, be it a relaxing uncompromised pleasure or a sadomasochist obsessed pleasure, or whatever. I think both core and causal games should have a broader spectrum of choices related to its difficulty (by this raising the chances of attracting players from opposite sides), but I firmly believe these choices, once available, must be at the control of the user, not the machine. If the game auto-defines its difficulty level based on my latest scores/trophies/achievement how would I do (if I’m a good gamer) to play it the easy way if I want to? In other words, power to the gamer! Let us have fun the way we feel like at any given moment.
Love the idea of a god mode available out of the box. Being easy is not synonymous of being tedious. The older I get the more frustration gets away from fun.
I’d imagine a good easy mode would be relaxing.... you know, you play it at your own pace, no pressure. It’s true, though, that experienced game developers have a hard time putting themselves in the shoes of a n00b. Perhaps good examples could come from games like Kirby, where challenge is virtually nonexistent, and the fun is to be had simply in the game’s mechanics, environments, and exploration. The player brings the fun. I guess that’s what I mean.
I’d worry about granular control of game difficulty stats... I don’t want developers thinking I’ll do their job for them. (I know you could have granular control and still have preset “levels” of difficulty, but I’d worry about programmers ignoring the importance of presets and instead foist those tough decisions on the buyers.) I’d also be skeptical of an easily-selectable “god mode,” when negative reinforcement, however modest, is at the core of any gameplay. Perhaps “normal” mode should be preceded by “beginner” and “easy” modes; “easy” for when you want a step down from “normal,” and “beginner” for a forgiving sort of game that anyone can play.
(That was actually the basis of Kirby, whose original concept was a game that pretty much anyone could beat, even by practically just holding right. It’s an important concept, because even stomping Goombas can be tough for the entry-level gamer, unaccustomed to the subtle hand-eye responses that videogames evoke in even the casually experienced gamer.)
http://tinarussell.wordpress.com/
I agree completely. Having grown up on games, they are a part of my entertainment life. Now that I have kids, I want to share the fun with them; but find that it's too difficult for them to have fun. The kiddy games are put together with god-aweful controls to the point that even I have a hard time getting anywhere with them; and the games I love to play are just too difficult for the kids to come to grips with.
If I could turn on God Mode for them so that we can play side-by-side as equals (they're 5, so give-em a beak); I could see us playing through Halo together many times over as a family. As it is; I find myself playing games less and less because it is simply unapproachable for the rest of my family, and that makes it too much of a selfish pasttime to continue on with.
Bring family options to the game; don't make a "family" game (yes, I'm speeking to you Nintendo!).
Everyone is hitting on some good points here. But I'd like to add something no one has mentioned yet, and that's achievements. I have no problem with a game offering any cheat, vita-chamber, easy difficulty level, god mode, etc because a lot of (360) games offer achievements for beating games on the hardest difficulty, or beating a game on the hardest difficulty without dying (or vita-chambers turned off like the brass balls achievement). Do I care that my non-gaming friend beat GH on super easy easy mode? No, because I have the "right hand of god" achievement (beat the game on expert). Beat call of duty on easy, I have the "deep and hard" achievement (beat the game on veteran i.e. the hardest difficulty), or the "mile high club" achievement. And MOST 360 games turn achievements off when codes are activated. So, I say cheat, use vita chambers, put it on easy, whatever you want to do, because at the end of the day, I'll have the achievements showing I put the time and effort into the game and you won't. And for you none 360 owners, all your achievements are viewable by your friends and any person that either has played with you before or looks up your gamertag. You can also compare your's with their's to see where you stand.
I think achievements solve a lot of the complaints from both sides. You can finish the game no matter how crummy you are at it, but you won't be rewarded with any achievements, or at least not the ones people are going to be impressed with.
Any of you have some nice achievements you're especially proud of?
not really.
Maybe the "beat an employee online" in PGR but even then I didn't realise it had even happened until much later when I was browsing the details...
Most achievements seem meaningless as far as I’m concerned. Most of the time I feel like I’ve achieved nothing bar actually just playing the game itself and surely it should be the sharp design and tight gameplay that should be the primary drive to go beyond a single play through and not the promise of some geeksum bragging currency. Although they do have me over a barrel in some respects as surely they're all aware of the fact many of us are addicted to collecting stuff and levelling, and for as much as I hate the idea of Gamerscore, I can't help but feel drawn to my own little numerical measurement as it slowly increases.
DAMN YOU ALL!
I do agree it is somewhat of a pointless bragging right. One tool achievements provide is the ability to check what type of gamers your friends are. Not for bragging purposes, but to see what they play, how they play it, and long they play their games for. It adds to your friends gaming personality (is there such a thing). How into games they really are. If I see someone got the mile high club achievement, that tells me they're pretty serious about gaming (and good). Or all 1 thousand points in Mass Effect, I'm impressed and know they put some serious time into it. If I see a friend of mine has lego star wars, cars, meet the robinsons, etc achievements I realized they are achievement whores (nothing wrong with that). I do have Avatar's achievements, but who doesn't?
I used to play games I didn't like for achievements until i realized that was stupid. I pretty much play naturally and the achievements I get is just a bonus and reward on top of the feeling of accomplishment I get from just finishing the game. And some achievements are attached to already really difficult tasks which already come with a level of satisfaction when completing, and having an achievement that goes along with it is just icing on the cake (and proof on the...er...cake).
The cynic in me can't help thinking that the people who complain about games being easy are less concerned with themselves being challenged than they are with other people being stonewalled. They don't want just anyone to be able to beat a game. If a game is hard enough that most people can't beat it, then you get to feel good about yourself if you are one of the few who are able to beat it.
We long-time gaming hobbyists play games all the time. We know that we can handle a steep learning curve. As long as a game is well-balanced and won't force me to suffer cheap deaths through little or no fault of my own, I'll be perfectly capable of beating it. But a non-gamer or an ex-gamer who hasn't played video games since Goldeneye is going to play Halo 3 on Legendary for five minutes and quickly decide to watch a DVD instead.
That might mean I get to feel cool because I can beat games that my non-gamer friends can't, but it also means my non-gamer friends won't be joining me for a Call of Duty party any time soon.
Seriously, I can't tell you how many people who tell me the reason they don't play games is because they suck at them. That doesn't make me happy. That makes me disappointed.
I never understood all the fuzz about the Bioshock VitaChambers. I wanted a challenge, so I never used them; upon dying, I would load my last save. But in my book it's perfectly OK if someone uses them. I agree that the gamer should be able to choose how he plays a game, and that includes the game's difficulty. I always used to play games on "medium", but I've recently started giving "hard" a try. And I've found out that in certain games, having powerful enemies makes a lot of sense. In Dead Space, for instance, knowing that every enemy has a chance of killing you definitely adds up to the horror atmosphere. It makes sense. On the other hand I'd never, ever, play Ninja Gaiden on "hard". Enjoying a game is more important than "beating" it.
There will always be a group of gamers, who usually are the most vocal, that want their games in be challenging. They want bragging rights. They want to be able to say that hardcore mode was easy for them.
When a feature allows the casual gamer to play through the same game without too much trouble, the aforementioned crowd gets angry and says that the game was dumbed down or made too easy.
There are so many games that I consider overly hard. I still consider myself a core gamer though. I'm lookin at boards almost every day. I play quite a bit at times. I always assume I am not going to be good at a game so I usually start on easy and gradually bump it up until i like. I beat gears of war 3 times in the first 2 weeks that I had it just because each time I went to a higher difficulty level. Insane required me to do co-op in some parts. So for me, it was too hard for single player, but perfect for co-op because you could revive each other.
There will always be differing opinions on the difficulty and there will always be someone to say "that game was soooo easy, you're such a noob"
Interesting concepts.
I came at this article wondering if it would be similar to several arguments I've heard regarding the purpose of the "Easy" difficulty setting. Some want a cakewalk, some want a respectable challenge that's a tuned down "Normal". Personally, I'd say the Bioshock Vita Chambers represent what I'd call an "Easy difficulty caveat". Playing the game on Medium with and without the Vita Chambers creates such a large difference in play style. Originally I'd considered concepts like that should be adopted as a means of broadening the appeal of a game to a wider audience. "Casual" gamers aren't necessarily people who don't want a challenge; they may simply not want the repetition of reloading a save or replaying a checkpoint.
I'm very interested in Tomb Raider's difficulty adjustment, however, because it catapults difficulty beyond pigeonholes of Easy, Medium, Hard etc.
Presumably, one could adjust the game to their preferred playstyle. I often find it frustrating that harder difficulties merely increase opponent health and decrease player health. I don't mind the latter so much, but the former feels cheap, particularly when it pushes the player into repetitive, frugal tactics. Giving power to the player in this sense, could breathe a lot of life into games that would otherwise stagnate over time.
Is a person expected to get better at a game? Or is the game expected to get easier for the player?
You've hit an interesting issue with this article.
I feel that part it is feeling like you've earned something, risking something.
Like... the most fun I've had with games is at arcades, when I was risking coins, my own money (well, my parent's heheh). That made dodging every freakin' bullet count, killing every boss satisfying.
When I ran outta coins, when mom was done shopping and we had to go home though, I'd still leave satisfied, while nurturing revenge for the next time we would meet.
But playing Metal Slug on the Playstation, I didn't care how many times I died, that risk was gone. The game became much easier, I finally beat it, but that was a hollow victory
There's a personal satisfaction in accomplishing something difficult, or social when you can compare yourself above your peers.
Maybe a question would be "how can a game tell you it's OK to lose, you gave it your all, then console you to try again with fightin' spirit?" hahah