Likes complex games, hate difficulty

[exobook]

I like playing games, I play a lot.

However I do not like difficulty. I do not want to be doing the same location over and over again just because the enemies are cheap. However at the same time I love games that are complex with multiple ways to play and progress. I always want to feel like I can overcome anything

Sure there are complex games that are hard but I hate them for the difficulty, while there are hard games that I love for their complex yet open design.

Does anyone else feel like this? Or is everyone just, the game must be as hard as it can be because that makes me feel hard or easy and simple as hell so I feel like I'm in total control.

 

[lacktheknack]

Fellow Dwarf Fortress fan, reporting sir!

Anyways, I like both. The Incredible Machine and Escape Goat are both excellent games in my mind, even though they fall nicely into the two categories you set up.

 

[MysticSlayer]

No, I'm more of a fan of challenge. Having a lack of challenge with complex mechanics makes it feel like so much of that complexity is going to waste, especially when you can ignore much of that complexity in favor of a few power strategies. I'd much rather the developers give reasonably deep mechanics that offer a variety of clever challenges. That can certainly be done in a complex game, but from my experience, complexity normally just means finding the one power strategy that the developers forgot to balance.

With that said, I certainly don't mind complex games that lack challenge, so long as they offer something else to enjoy the game for. In fact, some of my favorite games fall under that category.

 

[StriderShinryu]

For me difficulty and complexity have always gone hand in hand. There's just something that's always bugged me about games that have interesting and deep systems and mechanics, but where none of that is really tested in order to progress. Using a mastery of complicated mechanics to achieve victory is interesting to me not just using the mechanics because, heck, they're there so why not. It makes me thing of a really complex fighting game but with the difficulty permanently set to Easy and with no multiplayer mode.

 

[Zak757]

However I do not like difficulty. I do not want to be doing the same location over and over again just because the enemies are cheap. However at the same time I love games that are complex with multiple ways to play and progress. I always want to feel like I can overcome anything

Lots of complexity without "difficulty?" Here you go.

The A-10C Warthog is a stable aircraft with an advanced weapon system and great survivability. If you master how to fly it, you really aren't going to run into any "cheap" deaths since you won't be sent on missions against unfair threats and avoiding damage is easily accomplished once you know your stuff. If you can master how to fly it. Complex? The engine and game it was set in was already made, actually designing the aircraft itself took 5 years of development from a small but professional team, as it was being made to help train USAF pilots step up from A-10A to the A-10C. The work that went into this single aircraft is more than every plane that has come with HAWX and Ace Combat combined so far, to make it as realistic as possible. The manual that comes with the game is a good 700 pages long, and there is a good 3 hours of tutorial missions in the game that can really only teach you the basics. And I fucking love it, because whenever I complete anything, I feel massively accomplished because I could have done it in the real deal.

Note: don't actually even bother without buying ridiculously expensive peripherals first. Getting bye with the same controllers you would use for Ace Combat will cause headaches since you'll have to memorize dozens of awkward to use keyboard commands.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, Falcon 4.0 is more complicated since the F-16 is a multirole fighter designed to do tons of different missions instead of just ground attack. It was made in 1998 but the fans updated the engine a whole bunch and made the Falcon BMS mod which is fairly new and has a decently sized fanbase.

For me difficulty and complexity have always gone hand in hand. There's just something that's always bugged me about games that have interesting and deep systems and mechanics, but where none of that is really tested in order to progress. Using a mastery of complicated mechanics to achieve victory is interesting to me not just using the mechanics because, heck, they're there so why not. It makes me thing of a really complex fighting game but with the difficulty permanently set to Easy and with no multiplayer mode.

I agree, I see complexity as just another form of difficulty, or at least directly affecting it. If you can't learn the systems of a game, you can't succeed due to the difficulty.

 

[Trek1701a]

A hard difficulty falls into two categories, challenging and frustrating. The first is good and the latter is bad.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ugh I kinda wish more games did this. Been playing a lot of JRPG's lately where the Grind wall is clearly there. Mind Zero the latest of these that I pretty much have to put down for a while. Having trouble in an area or a boss, Grind 5 hours and see if it helps. and I wish 5 hours was an over exaggerated it but even holding down the fast forward button battles take far to long and you need to do way to many battles before you hit a level up. You can't even really grind for better skills since they don't make to big of a difference and just is more wasted time, and switching your party isn't happening without grinding them up since they get like 20% if the xp the main party has been getting.

Just games need a way to work skills and strategy lot more then grind because 5-10 hours before the next piece of the story gets a game dropped really quickly by normal gamers.

 

[Signa]

That's one thing I always loved about Plants Vs Zombies. The complexity is there, and there still is challenge, but it's not a hard game.

 

[Zak757]

Yep, that's complex. That's cool.

However, some games would send you in that thing on a lone wolf mission against 30 F-22 Raptors with no alternative way out than just to kill everyone to get to an escort or something. Maybe you'll get it on a 10th retry. That's stupidly difficult. Also, all those Raptors would be terrorists or evil PMC.

Love flight sims btw.

They only send you on fairly realistic missions so I haven't had to go up against any fighters, either because there aren't any around in the area or because I have fighter cover. You'll encounter the odd helicopter or Su-25 though you'll usually have a couple heat seekers on your wingtip to deal with those. No F-22 Raptors or any sort of post-2000 airframes are in the game so you don't have to worry about anything dumb like that. The enemies are generally poorly funded insurgents or Russians with somewhat comparable technology if you're playing the A-10C.

DCS also has modules for the Ka-50, Mi-8MT, and UH-1H which is modelled to the same level of accuracy as the A-10C, but they are more much less complex systems wise (though much harder to fly since they're helicopters). The Flaming Cliffs pack includes the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25, Su-33, F-15, and A-10A which aren't modelled to the same level of realism and are much easier to learn because of it. Su-25T comes free with the DCS download and is also comparatively easy to learn, if still lightyears ahead of arcade flying games.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Thing about difficulty is making things hard just because isnt a challenge. Its cheap. Its like with beat em ups where you hone your skills yet they make a cheap final bosses that blocks most of your hits. Its cheap difficulty and not something that needs you to use extra skill. Same with rpgs where they make the boss immune to every single magic spell and debuff you own. Cheap. They can make those bosses complex and make you use your skills cleverly to beat the boss. Instead of just making them hit sponges and the only difficult part is whether you fall asleep using basic hits again and again.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I'm actually the opposite from the topic creator: I tend to prefer games with straightforward mechanics that put players in challenging scenarios that force you to really master said mechanics.

"Easy to play, hard to master." basically.

 

[Rocket Taco]

Yeah... to me, challenge comes in two flavors: complexity and fairness. Managing hundreds of different factors to keep everything running smoothly (see: Dwarf Fortress) is hard, but it's a much more enjoyable kind of hard than having two moves, a thousand enemies, and having to nail EVERYTHING exactly right to progress.

It's intellectual challenge vs. reflex/muscle memory challenge. The former is fun - the latter is annoying.

 

[Zak757]

They only send you on fairly realistic missions so I haven't had to go up against any fighters

Yep, but not all games are so considerate.

When it comes to flight sims, my favorite, and also one of my favorite games of all times, as well as probably the most amazing game of all times, is the Enemy Engaged series [http://www.gog.com/game/comanche_vs_hokum]. Not a hardcore sim, but with a challenging flying model and some RTS elements.

If you want, you can just turn tune the realism settings and just fly some easy missions with the Apache which is a flying armory. Or you can fiddle with unit placements, create missions and waypoints, select loadouts and fly recon missions. That's complexity. Or you can hop in the Havoc the flying tank and go against other helicopters with unguided rockets, or try to take out fighters. Now that's difficulty, but the one you chose voluntarily.

Another reason why flight sims are superior to spunkgargleweewees! They don't put you in stupid unwinnable scenarios.

Huh. I got Enemy Engaged 2 for like 15$ (impulse buy, was on sale) and I remember it being awful. I guess the original was a whole lot better? If you like the Apache, a game called Combat Helo should be out this year, and it focuses on that. Tiny development team but looks pretty competently made. The Ka-50 module for DCS is awesome too, one of my favourite sim experiences.

As for spunkgargleweewee, I'd say the problem is putting you in situations that SHOULD be completely unwinnable, and than making them trivial to win.

 

[Lilani]

I like playing games, I play a lot.

However I do not like difficulty. I do not want to be doing the same location over and over again just because the enemies are cheap. However at the same time I love games that are complex with multiple ways to play and progress. I always want to feel like I can overcome anything

Sure there are complex games that are hard but I hate them for the difficulty, while there are hard games that I love for their complex yet open design.

Does anyone else feel like this? Or is everyone just, the game must be as hard as it can be because that makes me feel hard or easy and simple as hell so I feel like I'm in total control.

Hm, so you want games that are elaborate, but not difficult in the way of having to repeat levels multiple times. Sounds like strategy or puzzle games might be your thing. Civilization V is available on Steam and has lots of great little expansions and add-ons to make gameplay both elaborate and interesting. There's lots of different ways to play, and you can set up the game however you like.

If you've never played the game or any like it before, basically you choose a famous leader (Like Napoleon, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Queen Elizabeth I, Rameses II, Boudicca of the Celts, Gandhi, George Washington, etc) and start up a nation at the beginning of human history. You then get to build it up and become an empire, defending your nation from rogue barbarians and other nations which may be kind, or may be hostile. There are many ways to win: world domination where you militarily defeat every country, a science victory where you become the first nation to discover space travel, a diplomatic victory where toward the end of the game a united nations is established and through shrewd policymaking and strategic cooperation with other nations and city states you're sort of voted the winner, and many other ways.

And every leader comes with their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, Elizabeth I comes with a few bonuses to naval vessels, Caesar Augustus comes with a bonus that allows you to build up multiple cities in your empire faster, Gandhi comes with bonuses that make it more beneficial to have fewer cities in your nation...all of them have very unique strengths which affect not only how you play the game but also what type of victory you seek. The game on its own is pretty cheap now I believe, but along with it I recommend at least buying the Gods and Kings expansion, and if you're feeling up to it go for the Brave New World expansion as well. And there are lots of extra leaders you can buy as well, but I'd wait for a Steam Sale to accumulate them. They tend to be really cheap around that time.

 

[Maxtro]

I love and yet hate the Dark Souls franchise for this reason.

I really enjoy building my character picking the stats and gear and going through the adventure fighting various enemies and having to use new tactics.

But the games are just too hard for me to actually have fun with. For me, the difficulty is a huge negative and I feel that I can't play the game I want to play it. For one, the enemies simply do way too much damage. There are also several mechanics like being sent to a bonfire and having to repeat segments plus the whole losing all your souls if you die a second time just make the game a pain.

So what I did to make the game actually playable for myself, is use a program that makes backups of my save file every five minutes so when I die I lose very little progress and I save before every boss so I don't have to do a long run to try again.

For my second playthrough, I actually used a cheat program to set my vit to 99 and turned of weapon durability. The game was actually more fun that way and still challenging. And yes, I only played offline.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Kerbal Space Program.
Of course its how you define difficulty, its a sand box game so difficulty is up to you.
As for complexity.

Kerbal Space Program is LITERALLY ROCKET SCIENCE!
This XKCD comic sums up the complexity
http://xkcd.com/1356/

Play it with mods, Mech Jeb reduces difficulty without sacrificing much complexity, also improves realism, Neil Armstrong only had to land manually because his compute was spitting out error codes.
Also ISA map sat is a fun and realistic piece of equipment.

Here a sample of the complexity

"I am adjusting my Duna approach trajectory so I will aerobrake into a polar orbit, after which I will raise the periapsis to 200km and circularize the orbit and begin mapping"

Duna is the only proper noun in that sentence, its the Kerbal space program.
This is also a pretty ho-hum maneuver.

For slightly more wild
"I am going to preform a Bi-elliptic transfer maneuver, which uses the Oberth effect to reduce the amount of delta-v required as compared to a Hohmann transfer maneuver"

Best part is that these technical terms are terms that real space planners use.