Poll: Should difficulty be regarded as part of the art?

[Lumzdas]

All this talk (I use the term loosely) about making Dark Souls easier, or at least more approachable reminded me of a very specific game: Pathologic, made by Ice-Pick Lodge.

The game is about a town suddenly falling to a plague. At the start you get to choose from three characters. Your goal is to figure out how to cure the disease and you have twelve days to do it.
The game is difficult. And I am not talking about it requiring twitch skill, because it doesn't really need any. It drains you mentally. Every day you have to manage your hunger, thirst, sleepiness and of course - disease. All the characters you speak to have their own agendas and constantly lie to you, the streets are filled with drunks, kids with no parents or homes, houses are quarantined because the disease is inside. The atmosphere is beyond depressing and all that is elevated by the fact that you can barely go from day to day alive. And a midst all that, you're also trying to somehow find a cure for the disease.

I could continue banging on about it, but there's an article on Rock Paper Shotgun, written by Quintin Smith that does the job way better than me. He also talks the importance of difficulty to the game:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/butchering-pathologic/

So, do you think the difficulty is important in this game? If it was easier or more approachable, would the game be worth less?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So, do you think the difficulty is important in this game? If it was easier or more approachable, would the game be worth less?

The problem with making an argument for difficulty is that difficulty is relative. Something I find very easy might be very hard for you, or visa versa. Which is why we're usually gifted with difficulty levels...so people of differing levels of skill can enjoy the game, rather than limiting its potential audience.

I think it's very easy for people who have been gaming their entire life to have a fairly skewed idea of what constitutes fair difficulty in a game. I find Dark Souls pleasingly difficult. My girlfriend would find it completely impossible, and thinks I'm insane for playing it. There are people who pride themselves on talking about how it ain't even hard, presumably whilst shifting their weight around to account for the bulk of the mammoth testicles they want us to believe they possess. I adapt very easily to strategy games. My friend does not, he struggles in them...at any level of play. He just doesn't have a strategic mind. I can't play a fighting game to save my life. I'm terrible at timing based challenges, despite having reasonable reflexes. I like to be able to go slow and steady, and I've lost to my girlfriend when all she did was hunch over and pound the buttons randomly (oh, how she gloated). I could go on and on.

I think every single game has a sweet spot for difficulty, where's its challenging without necessarily being punishing. Difficult enough to be tense, not so hard as to provoke frustration. Finding that sweet spot can be very difficult, and very rare. When you hear someone praise the difficulty in a game, it's because it found their sweet spot.

This is why I like difficulty levels, and ideally even sliders.

 

[Lumzdas]

So, do you think the difficulty is important in this game? If it was easier or more approachable, would the game be worth less?

The problem with making an argument for difficulty is that difficulty is relative. Something I find very easy might be very hard for you, or visa versa. Which is why we're usually gifted with difficulty levels...so people of differing levels of skill can enjoy the game, rather than limiting its potential audience.

I think it's very easy for people who have been gaming their entire life to have a fairly skewed idea of what constitutes fair difficulty in a game. I find Dark Souls pleasingly difficult. My girlfriend would find it completely impossible, and thinks I'm insane for playing it. There are people who pride themselves on talking about how it ain't even hard, presumably whilst shifting their weight around to account for the bulk of the mammoth testicles they want us to believe they possess. I adapt very easily to strategy games. My friend does not, he struggles in them...at any level of play. He just doesn't have a strategic mind. I can't play a fighting game to save my life. I'm terrible at timing based challenges, despite having reasonable reflexes. I like to be able to go slow and steady, and I've lost to my girlfriend when all she did was hunch over and pound the buttons randomly (oh, how she gloated). I could go on and on.

I think every single game has a sweet spot for difficulty, where's its challenging without necessarily being punishing. Difficult enough to be tense, not so hard as to provoke frustration. Finding that sweet spot can be very difficult, and very rare. When you hear someone praise the difficulty in a game, it's because it found their sweet spot.

This is why I like difficulty levels, and ideally even sliders.

You're talking about difficulty like it's a main point of games - is it like that though? Yes, some people may not be able to play some games because of the difficulty. I actually never completed Pathologic, but I respect it's decision of difficulty, because it highlights the plot, atmosphere and tone of the game - it's hauntingly realistic in it's almost sadistic nature. Or should I say it's indifference to the player. You are regarded just like everyone else in the town - a random person. No special privileges except a load button. Would an easier difficulty not retract from that?

By no means am I saying that all games should have one rigid difficulty setting - I just think that in some games difficulty is a very specific design or artistic choice that should be regarded as such.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

By no means am I saying that all games should have one rigid difficulty setting - I just think that in some games difficulty is a very specific design or artistic choice that should be regarded as such.

Of course it is. Dark Souls is an obvious example, much would be lost without the difficulty. But how do we arrive at "this specific level of difficulty is required for artistic reasons"? It's then "artistic" for a very specific group of people who are appropriately challenged, "too easy" for others, and "aggravatingly hard" for the rest. There's plenty of people who are happy to say that game is bullshit and just leave it at that. Didn't really get its art hooks into them, now did it?

 

[hermes]

No. This discussion has been made for other media and the answer is the same.

Difficulty to get into something should not be regarded as praise to the work. Music is not less art now because you used to need a performer to read the sheet music, and literature is not less art now than it was when is was handwritten and in Latin. If you have to be more "hardcore" (god, I hate that word) to experience something, that is not a well regarded argument in favor of the medium or the work.

 

[Lumzdas]

No. This discussion has been made for other media and the answer is the same.

Difficulty to get into something should not be regarded as praise to the work. Music is not less art now because you used to need a performer to read the sheet music, and literature is not less art now than it was when is was handwritten and in Latin. If you have to be more "hardcore" (god, I hate that word) to experience something, that is not a well regarded argument in favor of the medium or the work.

If you hate that word why do you use it? Just curious.

Also, you don't need to be "hardcore" to experience it. I didn't complete it, nor do I have any hopes to do so. I still experienced it. And what I experienced was unique and interesting, in a way. The article states that the video game medium has a very strong potential for negative emotions - the utter dread that you feel in Pathologic is a good example. It is because of that atmosphere that I stopped playing, and I do believe that were it easier, I would have completed it, but it would not have had the same impact. Which is better?

 

[hermes]

No. This discussion has been made for other media and the answer is the same.

Difficulty to get into something should not be regarded as praise to the work. Music is not less art now because you used to need a performer to read the sheet music, and literature is not less art now than it was when is was handwritten and in Latin. If you have to be more "hardcore" (god, I hate that word) to experience something, that is not a well regarded argument in favor of the medium or the work.

If you hate that word why do you use it? Just curious.

Because there is no better word (that I know of) to describe "serious gaming" and commitment to experience the media. I hate it because of its implications, not because of its inexpressiveness.

Also, you don't need to be "hardcore" to experience it. I didn't complete it, nor do I have any hopes to do so. I still experienced it. And what I experienced was unique and interesting, in a way. The article states that the video game medium has a very strong potential for negative emotions - the utter dread that you feel in Pathologic is a good example. It is because of that atmosphere that I stopped playing, and I do believe that were it easier, I would have completed it, but it would not have had the same impact. Which is better?

In a way, if you didn't complete it, you didn't experience it. That is the reason why most designers are obsessed about completion rates in games. If they tried to get a point across with the atmosphere and the story and people stop after the first level for lack of interest or skill, it failed its propose.

 

[Lumzdas]

In a way, if you didn't complete it, you didn't experience it. That is the reason why most designers are obsessed about completion rates in games. If they tried to get a point across with the atmosphere and the story and people stop after the first level for lack of interest or skill, it failed its propose.

So if I don't collect all bajillion pokemon, I didn't experience it? If I don't complete all the side quests in Skyrim has the game failed? What's with the almost fetishistic approach to completing a game? I've played GTA IV, got to the last section of the game, but stopped playing. I've completed nearly all the missions, mucked around in the sandbox, in the multiplayer etc. The game obviously didn't fail, I had quite a lot of fun, so have I really not experienced it?

Also, I didn't stop playing Pathologic because of lack of interest or skill. It was mental exhaustion. Which the game purposefully made me experience.

 

[hermes]

In a way, if you didn't complete it, you didn't experience it. That is the reason why most designers are obsessed about completion rates in games. If they tried to get a point across with the atmosphere and the story and people stop after the first level for lack of interest or skill, it failed its propose.

So if I don't collect all bajillion pokemon, I didn't experience it? If I don't complete all the side quests in Skyrim has the game failed? What's with the almost fetishistic approach to completing a game? I've played GTA IV, got to the last section of the game, but stopped playing. I've completed nearly all the missions, mucked around in the sandbox, in the multiplayer etc. The game obviously didn't fail, I had quite a lot of fun, so have I really not experienced it?

I am not talking about collectibles, creatures or generic sidequests that add little to the story and add nothing new to the core experience; but if you only played the first level, I would have a hard time thinking you experience what the game was about (granted, at least you gave it a fair chance and left in a high note, so your attitude is better than those that play a few minutes of a game, don't like them and discarded them as garbage).

How do you know the game doesn't take a tonal shift after a few hours? Or introduces new mechanics to go along that shift? Is it a upbeat story about triumph over natural tragedy, or a downbeat story about hopelessness in the face of the disease?

I am not condoning the completionist attitude as a way to disregard your opinion, but I think there is a point to consider something as "experienced". Admittedly, that is a case by case point; but following your argument about art, its like saying this:

is all there is to see of Trevi.

 

[Lumzdas]

I am not talking about collectibles, creatures or generic sidequests that add little to the story and add nothing new to the core experience; but if you only played the first level, I would have a hard time thinking you experience what the game was about (granted, at least you gave it a fair chance and left in a high note, so your attitude is better than those that play a few minutes of a game, don't like them and discarded them as garbage).

How do you know the game doesn't take a tonal shift after a few hours? Or introduces new mechanics to go along that shift? Is it a upbeat story about triumph over natural tragedy, or a downbeat story about hopelessness in the face of the disease?

I am not condoning the completionist attitude as a way to disregard your opinion, but I think there is a point to consider something as "experienced". Admittedly, that is a case by case point; but following your argument about art, its like saying this:

is all there is to see of Trevi.

How do I know that the game doesn't take a shift? I honestly don't. What I find perplexing is that people seem to think that if you want to experience something to the fullest, you must see it to the fullest. Take the Trevi Fountain: should the water be removed because some people have really bad eyesight and need to be closer to see it? Difficulty is not the only part of a game. What if people can't play a game because they are absolutely against what it represents. Maybe they hate the music, or the aesthetics, or even the storyline and cannot play because of them. Should those things have sliders? If not, why? Are they more important than gameplay?

Again, I don't think all games should abolish adjustable difficulty, that would be bonkers. It's just that some games may suffer because of it, just like other games may suffer if you remove their storyline, or music (Guitar Hero comes to mind).

P.S.
Thanks for a great discussion so far, it's my first time participating in an internet forum, so I'm kind of new to all this.

 

[veloper]

Yes, if a game is art (by whatever definition of art this time), then difficulty is inseperable from the art, because challenge makes or breaks the gameplay.

Gameplay should be challenging. What difficulty presents the right challenge does indeed depend on the audience.
It's important then to meet expectations. Dark Souls is marketed as a hard game, so it should be hard (or atleast retain that mode as an option).

 

[hermes]

I am not talking about collectibles, creatures or generic sidequests that add little to the story and add nothing new to the core experience; but if you only played the first level, I would have a hard time thinking you experience what the game was about (granted, at least you gave it a fair chance and left in a high note, so your attitude is better than those that play a few minutes of a game, don't like them and discarded them as garbage).

How do you know the game doesn't take a tonal shift after a few hours? Or introduces new mechanics to go along that shift? Is it a upbeat story about triumph over natural tragedy, or a downbeat story about hopelessness in the face of the disease?

I am not condoning the completionist attitude as a way to disregard your opinion, but I think there is a point to consider something as "experienced". Admittedly, that is a case by case point; but following your argument about art, its like saying this:

is all there is to see of Trevi.

How do I know that the game doesn't take a shift? I honestly don't. What I find perplexing is that people seem to think that if you want to experience something to the fullest, you must see it to the fullest. Take the Trevi Fountain: should the water be removed because some people have really bad eyesight and need to be closer to see it? Difficulty is not the only part of a game. What if people can't play a game because they are absolutely against what it represents. Maybe they hate the music, or the aesthetics, or even the storyline and cannot play because of them. Should those things have sliders? If not, why? Are they more important than gameplay?

Again, I don't think all games should abolish adjustable difficulty, that would be bonkers. It's just that some games may suffer because of it, just like other games may suffer if you remove their storyline, or music (Guitar Hero comes to mind).

P.S.
Thanks for a great discussion so far, it's my first time participating in an internet forum, so I'm kind of new to all this.

I believe the music, the aesthetics or the storyline are all integral parts of what the game is and represents. They are all (hopefully) intentional decisions made to convey a certain state of mind. In the case of Pathologic, everything (from the graphics to the music and the dialogue) is specifically made to create a sense of dread. To change any of the aspects would be to tamper with the intend of the creator. I am sure the game would feel quite different if I listen to Les Luthiers while playing, or if I put the brightness all the way up in Slender man.

Difficulty is also part of the intend of the creator, but difficulty settings are there for a reason. They are there because most modern games don't use difficulty as a way to make a point; its the challenge that keep people engaged, but it doesn't really add much to your experience (other than frustration) if you kill a boss the third time, or the fourteenth. So designers challenge you, but not up to a point where you wouldn't get enjoyment from it (*). Of course, some games make difficulty and challenge parts of their core experience and, while valid, people should understand that before jumping in.

(*) I use the word enjoyment here carefully, and not as a synonym of "fun". People may enjoy horror, or drama, or find enjoyment in being intellectually or morally challenged, even when those are not necessarily "fun"; the word "fun" is too restrictive, and forcing all games to be "fun" has harmed the medium more than it helped. A game should always aspire to be enjoyable, not necessarily fun.

 

[Lumzdas]

I believe the music, the aesthetics or the storyline are all integral parts of what the game is and represents. They are all (hopefully) intentional decisions made to convey a certain state of mind. In the case of Pathologic, everything (from the graphics to the music and the dialogue) is specifically made to create a sense of dread. To change any of the aspects would be to tamper with the intend of the creator. I am sure the game would feel quite different if I listen to Les Luthiers while playing, or if I put the brightness all the way up in Slender man.

Difficulty is also part of the intend of the creator, but difficulty settings are there for a reason. They are there because most modern games don't use difficulty as a way to make a point; its the challenge that keep people engaged, but it doesn't really add much to your experience (other than frustration) if you kill a boss the third time, or the fourteenth. So designers challenge you, but not up to a point where you wouldn't get enjoyment from it (*). Of course, some games make difficulty and challenge parts of their core experience and, while valid, people should understand that before jumping in.

(*) I use the word enjoyment here carefully, and not as a synonym of "fun". People may enjoy horror, or drama, or find enjoyment in being intellectually or morally challenged, even when those are not necessarily "fun"; the word "fun" is too restrictive, and forcing all games to be "fun" has harmed the medium more than it helped. A game should always aspire to be enjoyable, not necessarily fun.

Hmm, it seems we reached somewhat of an agreement. I do agree that most games don't use difficulty or challenge to make a point. But, as you said, some games have difficulty in their core and people should be aware of that before buying. I guess people nowadays expect everything to be given to them on maybe not a silver one, but a platter nonetheless.

I guess I just wanted what people think of difficulty in itself, as an element of a game that is not just there to make the game enjoyable, but to give the game a meaning. I do feel there are not enough games like Pathologic, or, in a way, Dark Souls. I just think there's something special in knowing that you bought a piece of entertainment that's not meant to entertain you in any way, but make you depressed and devoid of any wish to "play" it any further. And if that doesn't deserve respect, I don't know what does.

 

[hermes]

I believe the music, the aesthetics or the storyline are all integral parts of what the game is and represents. They are all (hopefully) intentional decisions made to convey a certain state of mind. In the case of Pathologic, everything (from the graphics to the music and the dialogue) is specifically made to create a sense of dread. To change any of the aspects would be to tamper with the intend of the creator. I am sure the game would feel quite different if I listen to Les Luthiers while playing, or if I put the brightness all the way up in Slender man.

Difficulty is also part of the intend of the creator, but difficulty settings are there for a reason. They are there because most modern games don't use difficulty as a way to make a point; its the challenge that keep people engaged, but it doesn't really add much to your experience (other than frustration) if you kill a boss the third time, or the fourteenth. So designers challenge you, but not up to a point where you wouldn't get enjoyment from it (*). Of course, some games make difficulty and challenge parts of their core experience and, while valid, people should understand that before jumping in.

(*) I use the word enjoyment here carefully, and not as a synonym of "fun". People may enjoy horror, or drama, or find enjoyment in being intellectually or morally challenged, even when those are not necessarily "fun"; the word "fun" is too restrictive, and forcing all games to be "fun" has harmed the medium more than it helped. A game should always aspire to be enjoyable, not necessarily fun.

Hmm, it seems we reached somewhat of an agreement. I do agree that most games don't use difficulty or challenge to make a point. But, as you said, some games have difficulty in their core and people should be aware of that before buying. I guess people nowadays expect everything to be given to them on maybe not a silver one, but a platter nonetheless.

I guess I just wanted what people think of difficulty in itself, as an element of a game that is not just there to make the game enjoyable, but to give the game a meaning. I do feel there are not enough games like Pathologic, or, in a way, Dark Souls. I just think there's something special in knowing that you bought a piece of entertainment that's not meant to entertain you in any way, but make you depressed and devoid of any wish to "play" it any further. And if that doesn't deserve respect, I don't know what does.

I see your point. I just don't think difficulty is the right word to use.

True. Some games have difficulty (as in "challenge") as part of the experience, and without it the experience is severely harmed. Dark Souls is a good example of that, and although I am not a fan, I can respect it for it and understand that the challenge is part of what makes the game what it is.

However, what you describe in that other game is not really difficulty (at least, in the sense of challenge), but engagement. It engages you to some point that you may even want to stop playing because you are stressed about the way the characters and story will unfold. It takes place in a depressing and dire place, but in that depression and direness, it challenge you intellectually and emotionally. It goes with my idea of games being enjoyable but not fun. Try playing Spec Ops The Line and you will find it as depressing in hard as it is on easy.

That is extremely difficult to archive, and I could count with my fingers the amount of time I experienced it with big budget games (indie games are more willing to take risks and be engaging without being having to always be fun); and yes, for those games that successfully pull it off, its an vital part of their core experience.

 

[Lumzdas]

I see your point. I just don't think difficulty is the right word to use.

True. Some games have difficulty (as in "challenge") as part of the experience, and without it the experience is severely harmed. Dark Souls is a good example of that, and although I am not a fan, I can respect it for it and understand that the challenge is part of what makes the game what it is.

However, what you describe in that other game is not really difficulty (at least, in the sense of challenge), but engagement. It engages you to some point that you may even want to stop playing because you are stressed about the way the characters and story will unfold. It takes place in a depressing and dire place, but in that depression and direness, it challenge you intellectually and emotionally. It goes with my idea of games being enjoyable but not fun. Try playing Spec Ops The Line and you will find it as depressing in hard as it is on easy.

That is extremely difficult to archive, and I could count with my fingers the amount of time I experienced it with big budget games (indie games are more willing to take risks and be engaging without being having to always be fun); and yes, for those games that successfully pull it off, its an vital part of their core experience.

I'm not saying it's the difficulty that makes Pathologic what it is. It is all about engagement, just as you said. But without the difficulty being what it is, it wouldn't be able to achieve that level of engagement. It is because of the difficulty that you have to make certain decisions that would never be needed were it easy. Decisions like killing someone for food, because if you don't, you'll have to waste time getting food in a legitimate way and that would endanger someone important to you, which could lead to you not finding a cure. Such moments would not be possible if food was just lying around. It is the imminent presence death that engages you in the game and truly puts you in situations where you have to make such decisions (even if the game never actually asks you to decide anything).

Other than that, you're absolutely right.

 

[thesilentman]

All this talk (I use the term loosely) about making Dark Souls easier, or at least more approachable reminded me of a very specific game: Pathologic, made by Ice-Pick Lodge.

The game is about a town suddenly falling to a plague. At the start you get to choose from three characters. Your goal is to figure out how to cure the disease and you have twelve days to do it.
The game is difficult. And I am not talking about it requiring twitch skill, because it doesn't really need any. It drains you mentally. Every day you have to manage your hunger, thirst, sleepiness and of course - disease. All the characters you speak to have their own agendas and constantly lie to you, the streets are filled with drunks, kids with no parents or homes, houses are quarantined because the disease is inside. The atmosphere is beyond depressing and all that is elevated by the fact that you can barely go from day to day alive. And a midst all that, you're also trying to somehow find a cure for the disease.

I could continue banging on about it, but there's an article on Rock Paper Shotgun, written by Quintin Smith that does the job way better than me. He also talks the importance of difficulty to the game:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/butchering-pathologic/

So, do you think the difficulty is important in this game? If it was easier or more approachable, would the game be worth less?

You're going to have to clarify a bit. Do you mean difficulty on understanding the work or getting through it? Those are two separate things, and I'd like to know which one you mean before I attack you for all of the wrong reasons.

 

[Lumzdas]

You're going to have to clarify a bit. Do you mean difficulty on understanding the work or getting through it? Those are two separate things, and I'd like to know which one you mean before I attack you for all of the wrong reasons.

I mean the difficulty of getting through it. Also, before attacking my buttocks, I would kindly suggest reading my post above you. I explain just what kind of difficulty I am talking about here.

P.S.
Not the face!

 

[The White Hunter]

By no means am I saying that all games should have one rigid difficulty setting - I just think that in some games difficulty is a very specific design or artistic choice that should be regarded as such.

Of course it is. Dark Souls is an obvious example, much would be lost without the difficulty. But how do we arrive at "this specific level of difficulty is required for artistic reasons"? It's then "artistic" for a very specific group of people who are appropriately challenged, "too easy" for others, and "aggravatingly hard" for the rest. There's plenty of people who are happy to say that game is bullshit and just leave it at that. Didn't really get its art hooks into them, now did it?

As true as that is it raises the point of where do you draw the line? I personally don't reap much from paintings or photography, but I get a lot from books, or anime, or games, in terms of artistic experiences.

BUt in the case of a game like Dark Souls, where the difficult nature contributes largely to the experience in the form of feelings of despair and fear of what may be around the next corner, the difficulty is very much intrinsic to the game as a piece of art and without it's difficulty would likely lose what makes it so special.

If Dark Souls were a much easier game it'd really just be a somewhat generic fantasy RPG with a more in-depth combat system than usual. The difficult helps to build it's world and atmosphere. For example, the lack of a map helps to encourage the player to explore and find there own way, for me that feeling of getting lost and having to carve my own way really helps to ingrain the experience, it immerses me in the world and makes for a deeper experience than I would normally have.

I don't even know if I can say I find Dark Souls fun, so much as I find it gratuitously rewarding. As somebody who grew up playing preposterously hard games on 8 and 16 bit systems I kind of relish the challenge given by a game that doesn't wait for the player, and I think in some cases it's perfectly fine for that to be a crucial part of the experience.

Dark Souls is hard, but without it's crushing difficulty, I think it would lose a lot of it's special charm.

It does need a fucking pause button though.

[sub]And Demon's Souls is harder...[/sub]

Edit:
Though difficulty far from needs to be an intrinsic part of every games design, it's far from unreasonable to claim that a game like Dark Souls (as the most prominent example of recent times...) is entitled to maintain it's difficulty.

Yes, it's a barrier to entry so far as appreciating the art goes. BUt why should it come with a handholding mode and a tour guide for the sake of somebody who just doesn't get it?

Should I go to an art gallery and demand tutorials and handholding for appreciating a painting that I just don't get?

[This last bit sounds snarky and angry, it isn't intended as such, it's just a good example I think]

 

[JellySlimerMan]

I will let Razorfist handle this one...........again:

 

[Spider RedNight]

I appreciate difficulty and challenges if they're part of the game. Dark Souls is the pick because even on the easiest mode, it's still difficult. That's perfectly okay.

What I DON'T think is okay is that friend you have who runs up to you saying how boring Ninja Gaiden is because he's already beaten it on the hardest difficulty thrice.