What is the balance between a challange or too easy/too hard ?

[Edwardo Sosa]

As my first post on the escapist even though I'v had an account for 4 mounths I thought I'd ask a question me and some friends talked about recently, What factors and designs of a game give it a fun and rewarding challange and vice virsa make them too easy because of things like constant (usally mandatory) tutorials,OTE's(ouick time events) all over to the point its boring or in the case of being too hard where it feels like the game rapes you at every turn due to poor desgin and lacking control to where a game isnt fun or is not even worth playing?

Give your own thoughts and experiences

 

[scorptatious]

That's a good question. I'm not 100% sure myself.

Personally though, I think that a game should have a decent difficulty curve. Start off at a reasonably easy stage in order to learn the game's basics. And then work your way up from there. Also try not to use difficulty spikes. I've played quite a few games in which it was pretty mellow in terms of difficulty throughout, only for the game to suddenly kick you in the balls.

Overall though, I usually don't try to play games for challenge (games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls being an exception) I try to play them to have fun and escape from the real world.

 

[Cazza]

I found if I need to reset/retry more then twice it's too hard. If I breeze through a section that was to be a standpoint/boss then it's too easy.

I'm fine with tutorials as long as I can skip the new to gaming part "Press W to move forward". I hate QTE they pointlessly break up gameplay I would prefer a cutscene. They either come out of nowhere and you press the wrong button trying to fire or whatever, are insanly fast/ complex which I feel doesn't get the point of the QTE as I believe they are to make the player feel usful in what is to be a cutscene. Or just so slow you don't feel good about doing what a monkey could do.

I also hate unlock system. I was playing BF3 a few weeks ago and everytime I got into a plane I only had machineguns. Everyone else had rockets and anti plane systems unlocked I got killed before I could land one shot into anything. It took me forever (over a week) to kill steal dieing planes to unlock better equipment.

I really just hate how you need to sink X hours into a game before you can truely play it. I find it rare I find a reward systems that I agree with. Take TF2's drop system I hate that. Random suck all I need is one weapon and everyone else finds it and I get stuck finding an extra of things I have 4 already.


Thats a lot more negative stuff then I thought I would add. Onto good things

I do likes TF2 achievement weapon unlock. It's not demanding and there are many achievements to choose what you can do so thats one of the few Im okay with also seeing as the default stuff is still pretty good even if you dont have it you don't get smashed into the ground.

I really love systems that reward teamwork. Where teamwork wins over raw skill. Games like Left 4 Dead have done that. I love games where you need to manage resources. No excessive ammo and weapons.

A strong community is another important thing.

When it comes to singleplayer I find going through the story to be it's own reward. Finishing hard bosses and just getting to the credits.

 

[Rakun Man]

I think that the fine line of difficulty is giving the player a strong sense of self control.
If a game plays itself, it is too easy. If it always seems that it not the player's fault for not succeeding, then the game is too hard.
So difficulty can be a flexible thing in games, the importance is making the player feel responsible.

 

[TehCookie]

When a game can give you the fear of a game over but you persevere. Or in the event of a game over you can at least learn what you did wrong so you can get further the next time. If you die and can't say why it's too hard. Like the other above me said, if it plays itself it's too easy.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I like it at about the stage where If im not careful I will die but as long as I know what im doing it will be okay.

With harder parts where I die a bit sprinkled in. Basically Halo on Heroic hits that sweet spot for me.

Dieing is immersion breaking and annoying, but if I cant die then I wont find myself taking the game very seriously.

WTF Captcha? "Double dutch" What is a double dutch? sounds sexual....

 

[skywolfblue]

- Unresponsive/glitchy gameplay. It's easy to handle some really nasty bad guys in Gears 3 because the controls are so responsive and smooth, in contrast Mass Effect has a lot of times where your character doesn't take cover properly and it's not very fun to die to that.

- Having to repeat long sections of the game if you die. Also, bad checkpoint placing.

Halo on Heroic and Gears 3 on Hardcore is about my sweet spot for a little edge of challenge. I'll leave the super sadomasochistic difficulty options to others.

 

[Mr. Omega]

There's no surefire way to make it perfect, but I'll go with two I like.

I did kinda like the system in Kid Icarus Uprising, but I kinda wished there was a way to keep the difficulty up. Yes, it's supposed to be a punishment for losing, but why can't I just keep the difficulty up as well as lose hearts?

I also do enjoy the method typically used in modern Mario games: Anyone can get to the end credits, but it takes a real master to get it 100%. Those who want a challenge can get a challenge. But those who just want to play the game for fun get that as well.

Both have their flaws, but its better than the "whole game is easy" approach in most games, or the "hard the entire way and may or may not rely on cheap tricks to create fake difficulty" like some games do.

 

[King of Asgaard]

A good balance is one where the challenge is fair and never cheap.
For example, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls have this balance, despite what some may say.
In my opinion, their difficulty comes from mastering the controls, learning enemy patterns and exploiting weaknesses. Thus, the hardest playthrough is the first, and possibly second, because you still don't know everything there is to know about the game. But, come the third playthrough, you'd know most of the ins and outs of the system and can tackle adversaries with the appropriate approaches. I've personally experienced this, so i know what I'm talking about.

 

[Rheinmetall]

I agree, never ending tutorials, hints, direction arrows, (driving)aids, maps, frequent save points, regenerating health, etc make the game too easy and ruin it. I don't even discuss about these games.
But a game that demands from you high skills and doesn't give any alternatives to bypass that difficulty are no fun for me either. To give you an example, Demon's Souls/Dark Souls are hard games, but with a ton of alternative paths and different approaches each time, so that practically every gamer can beat them. They are more time consuming than actually hard. On the other hand, unforgiving games like Ninja Gaiden, or Myst, or old Castlevania titles are like private clubs only for the very skilled ones, with little room for beginners of any kind. I respect them as creations, but they are not my idea of fun in games.

 

[Hemlet]

Well, a game being too difficult or too easy can really come down to a single design choice. For example, Rayman Origins is challenging. It isn't too hard and it isn't too easy, even when one some of the more intense levels almost require that you be precognitive to make it through on the first pass. Why is this? Because Rayman Origins doesn't have a set number of lives. You can (and probably will) die frequently, and at most you'll be set back to the beginning of a section. If the game were to implement a lives system, the game would go from "reasonable challenge" to "obscenely difficult" by virtue that you would frequently run out of lives and have to restart entire areas versus only sections.

Another important aspect of difficulty is "player responsibility". A player should never be playing a hard section and think "the game just totally screwed me, I should have beaten that". If a player fails it should always be because the player is at fault, either because they were not observant/careful enough or because they didn't react quickly enough. The player should NOT fail because the game arbitrarily decided that the player should fail.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I like games that are hard until you try something different to beat it. Like maybe instead of charging forward in the tank you spawn in you hop out and sneak behind enemy lines without firing a bullet.

 

[veloper]

Those are good answers sofar.

The only thing I can add that when the difficulty is right in an action game, you can get into the flow where every victory encourages you for the next, harder challenge.
Action games should be designed to accommodate that flow.
The first reply mentioned difficulty spikes. Maybe those are not so bad, if they come with enough tension and forewarning, though overal the difficulty curve should be a gradual upward line.
Just as bad is action games that become easier as they progress, often action-RPGs, because they make your play dull and complacent. If sudden difficulty spikes are also included, you have a game where player characters die alot, but still no flow.

 

[Doclector]

That's a good question. I'm not 100% sure myself.

Personally though, I think that a game should have a decent difficulty curve. Start off at a reasonably easy stage in order to learn the game's basics. And then work your way up from there. Also try not to use difficulty spikes. I've played quite a few games in which it was pretty mellow in terms of difficulty throughout, only for the game to suddenly kick you in the balls.

Overall though, I usually don't try to play games for challenge (games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls being an exception) I try to play them to have fun and escape from the real world.

That and general fairness, I think. At no point should you fail because of anything but your own shortcomings and mistakes. Dark souls is examplar in this, because while it's extremely difficult, it's rarely "the game's fault".

 

[A Weakgeek]

I agree, never ending tutorials, hints, direction arrows, (driving)aids, maps, frequent save points, regenerating health, etc make the game too easy and ruin it. I don't even discuss about these games.

I don't think regenerating health necessarily makes a game easy, if its properly implemented. One thing I didnt like in old games was that I would save, and then realize that 50% hp was nowhere near enough for the next fight and then had to restart the whole thing over again. Because of that many games littered the maps in health powerups, so you might aswell have regenerating health.

If you mean mid combat however, I mostly agree. If its like in most modern shooters, where enemies drop in a blink of an eye, regenerating health is stupid. However, if its more like Halo where (Most) enemies have alot of health and can regenerate health themselves, i think its ok.

 

[shintakie10]

That's a good question. I'm not 100% sure myself.

Personally though, I think that a game should have a decent difficulty curve. Start off at a reasonably easy stage in order to learn the game's basics. And then work your way up from there. Also try not to use difficulty spikes. I've played quite a few games in which it was pretty mellow in terms of difficulty throughout, only for the game to suddenly kick you in the balls.

Overall though, I usually don't try to play games for challenge (games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls being an exception) I try to play them to have fun and escape from the real world.

That and general fairness, I think. At no point should you fail because of anything but your own shortcomings and mistakes. Dark souls is examplar in this, because while it's extremely difficult, it's rarely "the game's fault".

Psha. I wanna be the guy did it before Dark Souls and it was a 2d platformer.

Is that what its called? Think thats what it was called.

 

[thespyisdead]

i say a game can be as hard as it want's, as long as poor controls don't add to the difficulty... i say this, because i find games that are too easy not rewarding enough

 

[danon]

Pandas have been crying long enough, so i figured i had to post. I think that a important consideration one should take in game balancing, is target demographic. This is why Dark Souls difficulty is justified, but would not be in say, angry birds.