Poll: Game Difficulty and Reviews

[theSovietConnection]

This is something I have noticed a bit before in the past, but something I wanted to address given some of the reviews I have seen for Alien: Isolation.

I've read some of the negative reviews for the game, and noticed that a lot of the Cons listed for the game that I saw could have been corrected by a mid-game difficulty adjustment. IGN's review in particular comes to mind, though the reviewer admits that playing on the hard difficulty was a mistake on their part.

So I suppose my question is this: should a reviewer maintain a constant level of difficulty through a game, and ultimately penalise it if the game proves hard enough to make stretches repetetive, or should they turn the difficulty down to allow them to progress, and note as such in the review.

EDIT:To reword the question, should a reviewer continue playing a game when they are beyond their capability to beat it, and penalise the game in the review when they repeatedly are killed, or should they tone town the difficulty?

I am personally of the opinion that reviewers should turn the difficulty down if a stretch of the game starts to prove too hard to progress through. Ultimately not everyone is going to play the game on the hard difficulty, to go back to Isolation, so it'd be nice for a reviewer to not penalise the game for issues that may not crop up in the lower difficulty settings.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well ideally they would actually play it on all difficulties, but that is fairly unlikely so the least I expect them is to run on their level of skill and then try one level with all difficulties to have a decent range of information how things change.

What you propose however I do not condone, "Oh you should have played the game in the very specific conditions where it doesn't suck so people don't hear anything bad about it." Sorry but that is not reviewing, that is fan pandering... you can look for that in a Alien: Isolation fan meet up convention.
Get it through your heads people that reviews are there to inform you about the good and bad, it is not a sales pitch, that is what marketing and PR is for.

 

[theSovietConnection]

What you propose however I do not condone, "Oh you should have played the game in the very specific conditions where it doesn't suck so people don't hear anything bad about it."

That's not what I'm asking for at all, though. Honestly, it could have stayed at a 5.9 for all I care even if it listed this as the only con to the game

-Difficulty and erraticness of AI necessitated toning down of difficulty

That to me is a far better summary of what the reviewer found to be a problem with the game then to list several cons along the lines of

- Frustrating Alien AI
- Loses the fear
- Poor pacing

To me, the above all seems to stem from the fact that the reviewer just simply was playing the game at a harder difficulty then they were capable of really playing the game at.

I suppose I didn't word it as clearly as I could have In my first post (I've been up way longer today then intended so please forgive me) so I will reword it, but I'll also restate it here: I don't believe a reviewer should play a game beyond their capabilities, then penalise the game when it gets repetitive or frustrating because they keep dying.

 

[LaoJim]

To reword the question, should a reviewer continue playing a game when they are beyond their capability to beat it, and penalise the game in the review when they repeatedly are killed, or should they tone town the difficulty?

My view is that a reviewer should approach the game as would an 'average' member of the audience for the game in question. Usually I think this would mean playing through on Normal difficulty first. I saw the IGN review and I believe that the reviewer chose 'hard' because the game (or possibly the promotional material) had made out that gave the best experience. That's not unreasonable in itself and he noted in his review what he did and how that affected his impression of the game. What he's saying is similar to what other reviewers are saying, the game mechanics lead to some unfair deaths, however since this was more of a problem on 'hard' than 'normal' he is highlighting it far more. I haven't played the game yet, I suspect 5.9 is a little harsh, but it is good to have this alternate impression.

I don't believe a reviewer should play a game beyond their capabilities, then penalise the game when it gets repetitive or frustrating because they keep dying.

I think the key question with this is: was the reviewer failing because he had not played on normal and therefore wasn't aware of some of the basic mechanics and tactics, was the reviewer just not very good at this particular type of game or is the game fundamentally unfair?

 

[StriderShinryu]

I would say that a reviewer should play the game on it's default difficulty. I know that many games now offer the ability to switch difficulties part way through but the game should, presumably, be a balanced experience where you really shouldn't have to do that. If you're ever in a position where even once you know how to play the game and know what you're doing you have to adjust the difficulty then that is a failure of the game developers. And the default difficulty level should be the experience that the developers intended the game to be.

Now, in the case of a review where the reviewers decide for whatever reason to start the game on hard and then find the game too hard, then that's on them. To complete a full review I do feel that you should actually finish the game in question unless there is a valid reason why you just can't (bugs, glitches, online game with no reachable ending to speak of, etc.). I think it's then valid to adjust the difficulty level down (or, better yet, start over on the default) but that shouldn't be used as a negative against the game.

When it comes to Alien Isolation, though, the AI tuning of the Alien seems to be a consistent issue brought up regardless of what difficulty the reviewer played the game on. Sure it sounds harder on hard, but the Alien is meant to be unpredictable and inconsistent, and I can absolutely see how that could toe the line between "cool" and "stupid." It may be more realistic but it could also make the game very frustrating and cheap feeling depending on what you see and what your preference is. And the end of the day, that's what reviews are, preferences and opinions. If having the main source of death in a game be something you find random, cheap, unpredictable and frustrating is how you feel then that sounds like a pretty valid reason to rate the experience poorly.

 

[tippy2k2]

I do agree with that but not in the way that you're stating. Stick with me on this...

I feel that game reviewers should go with the default setting when they play the games. The default setting should be the benchmark since that is what the game makers have set as the benchmark. The game's review should be based on that mark.

...however, I think the opposite for the difficulty and that the makers should kick it to the highest level at some point. Maybe this is just my own experience and wouldn't hold up in real life but I find that the truest test to see how well a game plays is to play it at it's most difficult and see if it still functions.

A game with bad controls and unsmooth game play will break down at the highest difficulty. You don't set your score based strictly on that but a game that plays well will play well at any difficulty; a game that does not can hide this in the easier difficulties.

 

[Jonsbax]

If you're ever in a position where even once you know how to play the game and know what you're doing you have to adjust the difficulty then that is a failure of the game developers.

Wait, what? If you pick a difficulty setting that's too hard for your skill level it's the developers fault?

I would say that a reviewer should play the game on it's default difficulty. I know that many games now offer the ability to switch difficulties part way through but the game should, presumably, be a balanced experience where you really shouldn't have to do that. If you're ever in a position where even once you know how to play the game and know what you're doing you have to adjust the difficulty then that is a failure of the game developers. And the default difficulty level should be the experience that the developers intended the game to be.

I feel that game reviewers should go with the default setting when they play the games. The default setting should be the benchmark since that is what the game makers have set as the benchmark. The game's review should be based on that mark.

This argument seems to always pop up when discussing difficulty levels, and it strikes me as slight laziness on the player's part. The idea that "Normal" (stupid way to call a difficulty setting btw) should be the standard, balanced experience and if it's not it's a failure on the developer is just impossible because difficulty is completely subjective.

As a person who has played mostly action games for most of my life and enjoys depth in gameplay, I usually find myself starting games on hard or even the harder difficulty settings if there are those unless I've heard that the game is distinctly challenging. NOT because I want to have extra hard time with the game, but to have the balanced and rewarding experience for me. It's up to the player to know their skill level and have the patience to change difficulty after a couple of battles or whatever if they're struggling.

I think the easy-normal-hard labeling of the difficulty settings is just dumb from the get go. If I were to make an action game, I'd probably call the difficulty settings First-timer, Beginner, Adept, Skilled, Expert or something along those lines.

Note that everything I wrote was based on that the devs know how to make skill-based, "good" challenge.

...however, I think the opposite for the difficulty and that the makers should kick it to the highest level at some point. Maybe this is just my own experience and wouldn't hold up in real life but I find that the truest test to see how well a game plays is to play it at it's most difficult and see if it still functions.

A game with bad controls and unsmooth game play will break down at the highest difficulty. You don't set your score based strictly on that but a game that plays well will play well at any difficulty; a game that does not can hide this in the easier difficulties.

This. I was really psyched the play the God of War games for the first time on the PS3 collection, but the games are kinda boringly easy and repetitive on normal mode and then just fall completely apart on the harder settings.

 

[MysticSlayer]

From what I can gather from the IGN review, the guy wasn't just complaining about the (sometimes unfair) difficulty of Hard, but he was also just tired of the game for the last few hours, which only amplified the annoyances of the difficulty level. I'm not really sure that putting it down in this case would have helped matters. It sounds like the guy was already pissed that it was taken so long to beat.

Anyways, I don't think reviewers have to put down the difficulty in order to avoid complaining about how challenging it is. Ideally, a challenge shouldn't get on your nerves. It should drive you to play more rather than question why you're playing, and you simply can't expect that some of the people you are reviewing for aren't going to jump straight to those higher difficulties where the game's design flaws become more noticeable. Heck, with all of the "Why are games so easy now?" complaints, some reviewers probably should be making it a priority to play on harder difficulties.

Besides, I've never actually played a game where lowering a difficulty provided a significant improvement to the experience. If anything, it just highlights bad design more, considering I can still see all the flaws, but now I'm realizing that the developers are hiding it behind a lack of challenge.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I'd say any reviewer should start out on the default difficulty the game provides and notch it up or down as needed. Or if time allows, try to play through multiple times on those different difficulties, noting any significant differences or problems that might plague each setting.

 

[BrotherRool]

I think a reviewers job is to try and have the experience the game wants them to have. So if a reviewer isn't having fun because the game is too hard, and the developers allow switchable difficulty settings, well they were put there to be used right?

It's probably useful to mention in your review, but I would much rather reviewers did that then slap a big 'NOPE, too hard' on the game and stop playing it

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I think the difficulty of a game (assuming that it has multiple difficulty settings) should only really affect the review under 2 conditions

1: The game has a poorly done difficulty curve (ie. it gets way too easy or way too hard seemingly out of nowhere). An example I'd give of a game that I'd give a negative review of there would be "Path of Exile", which was moderately difficult the first two acts and then suddenly became murderously difficult in the 3rd act.

2: The game is too tough even on 'very easy' setting. I actually remember that, years ago, a game site re-did their review of "Myth: The Fallen Lords". When the game was first released, it had 5 difficulty settings, and even the easiest setting was incredibly hard, so they slammed it in the review as simply being too tough. When Bungie released a patch that made the difficulty more manageable, they gave it a much more favorable score.

 

[Vigormortis]

I would have preferred a "doesn't matter" poll option.

Because really?...it doesn't matter. At all.

Unless the reviewer is listing specific, objective critiques on certain aspects of the game's design and functionality, everything else in the review is subjective. It's pure opinion.

Being opinion, the reviewer is free to say what they please. We have no right to expect them to play the game the way we want them to. Whatever experience they have with the game is their experience, not ours.

Besides, not describing their own experience in their review would make the review disingenuous. Would you really prefer a reviewer attempts to project into their review what someone else might think of the game? What would be the point? How could they possibly paint an objective image of the game for their readers? At least, any more "objective" than their own personal experience.

A reviewer is welcome to play the game however they please. If they're adjusting the difficulty during their play-through, that's a completely valid method of play, provided they explain as much during their review. If they start off at the highest difficulty, same deal.

If it's in the game, mechanically or logistically, it's fair play. As long as the reviewer details the things they did during their play session, and the methods they used to achieve their goals, I see no issue at all with them not playing the way others think they should have played.

 

[StriderShinryu]

If you're ever in a position where even once you know how to play the game and know what you're doing you have to adjust the difficulty then that is a failure of the game developers.

Wait, what? If you pick a difficulty setting that's too hard for your skill level it's the developers fault?



Note that everything I wrote was based on that the devs know how to make skill-based, "good" challenge.

Certainly it's not up to the developer to force a reviewer to choose the "right" difficulty level. If the developer does their job, however and as you yourself indicate, a player should be able to overcome the challenges put before them. This should be, to some extent, regardless of what difficulty level the player is playing on. The issue is when the difficulty level is inconsistent or illogical. That most definitely does represent a failure of the developer. There was an error made in the tuning of that part of the game if nothing else, before or after, gives you that sort of insurmountable trouble.

 

[Tanis]

I'd say all games should be played for review on 'Normal' difficulty.

Judge the game like that.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

An acceptable compromise, though they should probably mention the fact in the review (and if they consider admitting to doing so to be a 'wimp' move, they should read Robert Coffey's old Scorched Earth article about Easy mode).

Most reviewers don't get as much time to review individual games as they would like (thinking back I have to wonder how any reviewer manages to review even half of an RPG). It's a job, not a hobby, so if changing the difficulty mid-way through allows them to progress and see more of a game's content to better formulate an idea of how much they enjoyed it, more power to them. They can usually be trusted to bring up something like 'be warned, this game is quite frustrating at times, you really need to be on your guard all the time, and if that's not your thing I wouldn't play it', or conversely, 'this game is so easy that it's boring even when I turned it up to the highest level'.