Topic: Ridiculous Game Difficulty as a Selling Point

[Cobra951]

I was going to post this in the Dark Souls thread, but then I thought better of it.  However, this article certainly belongs in our discussions about game difficulty, and how it can be an absolute barrier to some of us, while fueling the fervor of others.  It's the best piece I've read yet on the subject ("phenomena" used as singular notwithstanding).  It's not long.  Give it a read.

[K-man]

I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't enjoy difficult games.  I can certainly understand why Dark Souls would be a turnoff to people, despite it probably being my game of the last generation (it goes back and forth with RDR).  However, I find his call for multiple difficulty levels a little out of place.  If it is not the intention of the game designers it should not be included, period.  I think an easy mode for a game designed to be difficult cheapens the experience.

We've all gone through games on autopilot in easy mode.  I would not have gotten nearly the enjoyment out of Dark Souls had I done that.

[K-man]

To further my point, the mechanic that drives games like Dark Souls *is* the difficulty.  If you neuter that then you are not left with much else.  You coast through, and nothing feels like an accomplishment.  The game is never unfair, it just forces you to work with what you have, learn, and adapt accordingly.  Going back to the article, he sort of contradicts himself by bringing up JRPGs.  So it's OK to artificially extend a JRPG with difficulty, but not OK to extend a game like Dark Souls with it?  If you were to play through Dark Souls on easy, it would be a terrible game.  There's not much direct story and aside from a few pretty areas most of the landscape is dreary and depressing.  The game is difficult because the game's selling point is its difficulty.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that gamers have different tastes.  Some love sports games, some love 2d fighters, some love RPGs, some love action.  Some people love difficult games.  I may not want to put the time and effort into becoming good at the newest iteration of Madden, but that doesn't mean I want a game mode where I take every offensive play in for a touchdown.  Games like Dark Souls are marketed to people who want hard games, so if you're not part of that group then the game is not intended for you.  Don't want to play a football game?  Don't buy Madden.

[Quemaqua]

Not every game needs to be played by everyone, period. Anyone who suggests this need be the case has failed to realize that there are more games currently on the market than any of us could ever reasonably play even if we did so professionally. There's a game out there for you. If you don't like one, go find another. Not every game has to (or even should) appeal to everyone. Didn't read the article, that's just my response to the comment about difficulty levels.

[Cobra951]

To further my point, the mechanic that drives games like Dark Souls *is* the difficulty.  If you neuter that then you are not left with much else.  You coast through, and nothing feels like an accomplishment.  The game is never unfair, it just forces you to work with what you have, learn, and adapt accordingly.  Going back to the article, he sort of contradicts himself by bringing up JRPGs.  So it's OK to artificially extend a JRPG with difficulty, but not OK to extend a game like Dark Souls with it?  If you were to play through Dark Souls on easy, it would be a terrible game.  There's not much direct story and aside from a few pretty areas most of the landscape is dreary and depressing.  The game is difficult because the game's selling point is its difficulty.

I thought him bringing up RPGs made the post all the more interesting, not self-contradictory.  It's not just about difficulty, but about how it's difficult.  He doesn't mind having to grind to develop a character, so that overcoming a boss or other choke point goes from impossible to very doable.  He minds having to repeat the same lengthy sequence many times, without any deviation, or added variety, or additional earned perks, just to be able to progress.  This is what will eventually kill my interest too, in any game designed like that.  Good RPGs still let you roam and discover vast areas while ramping up your character's XP and gear.

I thought his point about the "golden" age of gaming was quite valid too.  Games had to be difficult during the early days because their scope was severely limited by the technology.  I myself wrote a stupidly hard game for the Atari 800.  It had to be stupid-hard because it was only 3 levels long.  That's all I could fit in the meager storage space and RAM.  I myself never finished it without turning off collision detection for hostiles with a conditional-compile flag.  (I was elated to see that someone managed to do it.)  Fast forward to today, and we can have entire cities to roam, and games with dozens of hours of non-repeating content.  This reason for excessive difficulty simply is no more.

So that leaves severe difficulty as strictly a design choice.  Like this article's author, I have no problem with giving those who thrive on this sort of thing what they want.  But why limit your creation to just the elite few?  Sure, the devs are entitled to do that, if that's their wish, and they can make ends meet anyway.  The Dark Souls franchise is proof that it can work.  But didn't somebody with that outfit say that he wished more people could experience DS?  There's only one way that will ever happen, and that's to make it more accessible with an optional lower difficulty.  No, they don't have to, and clearly they won't do it.  And no, I will never experience DS 2 after my brick-wall experience with DS.  They lose out on my money and mindshare, and I lose out on the experience.  Lose-lose, without any added wins.  They already have the elite.  That's not what they're leaving on the table.

[K-man]

I thought him bringing up RPGs made the post all the more interesting, not self-contradictory.  It's not just about difficulty, but about how it's difficult.  He doesn't mind having to grind to develop a character, so that overcoming a boss or other choke point goes from impossible to very doable.  He minds having to repeat the same lengthy sequence many times, without any deviation, or added variety, or additional earned perks, just to be able to progress.  This is what will eventually kill my interest too, in any game designed like that.  Good RPGs still let you roam and discover vast areas while ramping up your character's XP and gear.

I thought his point about the "golden" age of gaming was quite valid too.  Games had to be difficult during the early days because their scope was severely limited by the technology.  I myself wrote a stupidly hard game for the Atari 800.  It had to be stupid-hard because it was only 3 levels long.  That's all I could fit in the meager storage space and RAM.  I myself never finished it without turning off collision detection for hostiles with a conditional-compile flag.  (I was elated to see that someone managed to do it.)  Fast forward to today, and we can have entire cities to roam, and games with dozens of hours of non-repeating content.  This reason for excessive difficulty simply is no more.

So that leaves severe difficulty as strictly a design choice.  Like this article's author, I have no problem with giving those who thrive on this sort of thing what they want.  But why limit your creation to just the elite few?  Sure, the devs are entitled to do that, if that's their wish, and they can make ends meet anyway.  The Dark Souls franchise is proof that it can work.  But didn't somebody with that outfit say that he wished more people could experience DS?  There's only one way that will ever happen, and that's to make it more accessible with an optional lower difficulty.  No, they don't have to, and clearly they won't do it.  And no, I will never experience DS 2 after my brick-wall experience with DS.  They lose out on my money and mindshare, and I lose out on the experience.  Lose-lose, without any added wins.  They already have the elite.  That's not what they're leaving on the table.

You're essentially doing the same kind of grinding in Dark Souls.  The perk is that you, the player, become better instead of earning some piece of gear or a level.  You essentially level yourself up instead of your avatar. 

Difficulty was a necessity in the golden age.  Cheap difficulty sucks and I hate it.  Dark Souls is not what I would call cheap difficulty, though.  I do believe that games like Ninja Gaiden tread into "cheap" territory, though.

Again, I believe the inclusion of a lower level of difficulty in games like Dark Souls would ultimately cheapen the package.  I don't even want the option of having a "win button".  Sure they lose out on your money and mindshare, but other genres are the same way.  Football sims lose out on me because they are football sims and I don't really care for them.  The way I see it there's no difference.

[Cobra951]

Football is a totally different activity.  Either you like it or you don't.  I don't see how that relates to different difficulty levels on one kind of game.  I like medieval hacking and slashing, at the right challenge level for me.

I guess I don't have much to add beyond this point.  There seems to be a hard line here that I wasn't expecting.  Short take: I'm asking for something more, not for anyone to lose anything that they already have (like Hard-as-Nails mode).  Why can't we have both?  The answer I'm hearing is that it can't be done without taking something away from you.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[nickclone]

You're essentially doing the same kind of grinding in Dark Souls.  The perk is that you, the player, become better instead of earning some piece of gear or a level.  You essentially level yourself up instead of your avatar. 

Difficulty was a necessity in the golden age.  Cheap difficulty sucks and I hate it.  Dark Souls is not what I would call cheap difficulty, though.  I do believe that games like Ninja Gaiden tread into "cheap" territory, though.

Again, I believe the inclusion of a lower level of difficulty in games like Dark Souls would ultimately cheapen the package.  I don't even want the option of having a "win button".  Sure they lose out on your money and mindshare, but other genres are the same way.  Football sims lose out on me because they are football sims and I don't really care for them.  The way I see it there's no difference.

When I'm playing Dark Souls, I don't feel like I'm getting better as a player, I feel like I'm doing a routine or a chore just to get back to the point of where I died last. Not only is the difficulty of DS its selling point, but it's the game's only point. The game itself isn't that good, there is no story, mediocre combat/graphics (just don't look too close)/controls/menu system/level up system. The difficulty is the only thing that separates this game from other action RPGs. In fact, I think many people overlook the many glaring problems with this game because they simply like the difficulty or just chalk some of the problems up to trying to add to the difficulty.

I also think it's how a game is difficult that is very important as well. The Mega Man series is hard because you don't know what works on what boss until you try it (knowing the order of the levels to complete makes the game a breeze). If you do die in Mega Man, you just continue and try again, no real punishment. In Dark Souls, you're given basic information on how to play the game (controls) and no real direction on where to go. I don't mid the lack of direction in an open world type game, but open world games are mean't to be explored. In Dark Souls, you're punished for exploring the world and I didn't feel like I was enjoying the game, just trying to get to the next bonfire. Hell, the game doesn't even tell you what most of the items do, I guess the lack of info adds to the difficulty.

[Xessive]

I'm not gonna get into a discussion about Dark Souls because, well, I think I've made my opinion on that game abundantly clear over the years However, with regards to the main topic, difficulty is a factor in gameplay but I agree that it should not be the only factor.

Some games rely on the difficulty of completing certain tasks or defeating certain enemies in order to get that feeling of satisfaction. I believe there is a balance. There are some punishingly difficult games that I enjoy and others that I don't; which is evidence that the difference (at least for me) is the core gameplay, and the perhaps even the story, not the difficulty. I'll play difficult games if I have the right motivation; difficulty in itself is not enough incentive.

Games like Super Meat Boy, Ninja Gaiden, and Megaman are all notoriously difficult but renowned for more than just their difficulty. That difficulty was not due to control issues or balancing problems, it all boiled down to solving a puzzle, figuring out a level, or a boss fight. When I failed it was my fault not the game; I wasn't fast enough, I rushed in too soon, I didn't block, etc. In those particular games I never felt like the game was taking cheap shots at me. As a player, I shouldn't have to do chores to satisfy a game's obtuse requirements. Good game design includes respecting the player.

[K-man]

I've seen enough level 1 Dark Souls runs to tell you that the game is not cheap.  It rewards patience and smart play. 

It all boils down to this:  If you don't like the inherent difficulty in the Dark/Demon's souls games, the games are not for you.  And that's fine.  If you changed that in any way (including a lower difficulty level) then the game is no longer Demon's/Dark Souls.  Ninja Gaiden Sigma begrudgingly included an "easy" mode, and made fun of you for doing it by forcing you to wear a pink bandanna.  The difficulty is part of the game design.  This is different than, say, playing Halo in Legendary mode or something similar, where the game just sort of artificially ramps the difficulty up.  From designed those games from the ground up to be hard, and that's what they should stay.  There's plenty of less-challenging games available.

I think the games were, in part, a natural response to the increased prevalence of hand holding the last two generations have brought.  You used to have to figure stuff out on your own, or heaven forbid RTFM.  It's gotten way out of hand, and games treat you like you're stupid. 

[K-man]

And let's be honest here, games like Super Meat Boy and Mega Man simply boil down to muscle memory and repetition.  Not to say they aren't fun, but there's no magical difficulty balance happening there.

[Cobra951]

And let's be honest here, games like Super Meat Boy and Mega Man simply boil down to muscle memory and repetition.  Not to say they aren't fun, but there's no magical difficulty balance happening there.

Rayman Legends falls in the same category, for the most part.  But here's a game that throws all sorts of challenges at you, where not only the level of difficulty varies, but also the form of the difficulty.  Some levels mount you on a mosquito, and they are much like a sidescrolling shooter.  I enjoyed these quite a bit, and no matter how many skulls the level was rated (1 skull="easy", 5="insanely hard") I stuck with them and completed them.  Most levels were strictly platforming, and could get quite hairy, but they featured enough checkpoints and pure fun to be enjoyable.   But then there were those, like many of the invaded-paintings levels, that bring in this obtuseness that I've objected against so much--namely, being forced to complete a long difficult sequence without any checkpoints at all.  I made myself get through some of those, but then I just said screw it.  They become frustrating chores, and completion brings not elation, but whimpering relief that the torture is finally over.  No thanks.  Fortunately, none of these is essential to getting through the game, or even to unlock all the 40 Origins levels (which are actually the ones I enjoyed most).  So overall, I'm very happy with Legends.

[K-man]

I've been wanting to give that game a go for a while now.

[Cobra951]

Oh yeah, I highly recommend it.  So much there, and so well done.  Best 2D platformer in years.

[Cools!]

I read the article and I get what Cobra is getting at, but like K-man mentioned the hard difficulty is a big part of the DS franchise. Personally I wouldn't mind if they had an "easy" mode, but then it simply wouldn't be a DS game. You either like it, or you play something else. I'm ok with that.

Personally, I would've liked it if there was a bit more randomness and variety each time you respawned in DS games. I'm ok with the challenge, but having to repeat the same section and memorize where every enemy is located and how to avoid them so you can get to the boss is just not something I'm looking for. That's just me.

[gpw11]

From the article:

If the only thing you see when you look at a classic JRPG is a 16-bit dragon and a massive difficulty spike, there’s something wrong with the way that you’ve been appreciating your games.

This is a terrible example.  The "difficulty" in 90's RPGs is a completely different beast than what he's rallying against here.  I remember playing Phantasy Star IV while sick when it came out and it very well could have been the first RPG I played.  I remember hitting a castle or whatever that I thought was a brick wall. Enemies were killing me and I couldn't get close to the boss.  Then I leveled up for an hour and a half and walked through the fucking place like it was nothing.   Great.

The guy has a  point - that's an outdated playing mechanic that was excusable at the time.  It wasn't, however, difficult by any means - it was just a time sink.  You didn't have to mentally figure anything out, there was no test of co-ordination or reaction time, you just had to invest the right amount of time doing the most mundane shit possible in order to proceed.  It's like saying a run of the mill cross country course is more difficult than a black diamond downhill course - they're not the same thing at all, one just takes longer.  There MIGHT be something wrong with how this guy appreciates his games.

I'm not going to comment much on the difficulty in Dark Souls - I've done so before.  I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did, and then I hit a part I didn't like and stopped playing.  I think it's a great game, but the difficulty is part of that - I wouldn't have given a shit if it wasn't hard...and I'm not even someone who LOVES difficult games.  It just is what it is - A difficult game, and the difficulty is an inherent aspect of the gameplay.   This guy is basically saying that Gran Turismo is awesome, but it would be better if it was more like Daytona. It doesn't really make all that much sense.

Not every game is for everyone, guy needs to get over that even though "there is so much content for me to discover!!!"  Game was designed this way, go play something else. 

A bit of a different example is Thomas Was Alone (I was talking to Idol about this tonight). Quickly becoming one of my favorite games, on my second playthrough.  It's great, has puzzles, low level of difficulty.  Free expansion is released, with drastically higher difficulty and there are a ton of complaints - some hate it (to be fair, some love it). I didn't find it terrible, but definitely see where people are coming from. The game went it one direction, the expansion in another.  Sure, that's legitimate feedback. You think you're getting something, you get something else.  Dark Souls though, you know what you're getting. I don't find it hard to believe that the developers would feel that an easy mode would compromise the integrity of the game.  They seem to be doing well with it, people just need to admit that some games aren't for them.

Also, Rayman Legends comes with Rayman Origins?  Shit, why'd I buy Origins?

[Cobra951]

From the article:

This is a terrible example.  The "difficulty" in 90's RPGs is a completely different beast than what he's rallying against here.  I remember playing Phantasy Star IV while sick when it came out and it very well could have been the first RPG I played.  I remember hitting a castle or whatever that I thought was a brick wall. Enemies were killing me and I couldn't get close to the boss.  Then I leveled up for an hour and a half and walked through the fucking place like it was nothing.   Great.

The guy has a  point - that's an outdated playing mechanic that was excusable at the time.  It wasn't, however, difficult by any means - it was just a time sink.  You didn't have to mentally figure anything out, there was no test of co-ordination or reaction time, you just had to invest the right amount of time doing the most mundane shit possible in order to proceed.  It's like saying a run of the mill cross country course is more difficult than a black diamond downhill course - they're not the same thing at all, one just takes longer.  There MIGHT be something wrong with how this guy appreciates his games.

His point, and mine, is that difficulty is not just a simple scale.  There are not only different levels of difficulty, but also different forms of difficulty.  Which forms are palatable depends on the individual players.  In a classic RPG, when you hit a brick wall, you can walk away from the choke point and go develop your character further, until he can cope with the challenge.  You call it a grind, which is a value judgment you place on the longstanding RPG mechanic.  That makes me conclude that you don't much like that form of difficulty.  Developing a character, whether in an RPG or real life, takes time to train and develop resources.  Sure, it can be called a time sink.  Anything that takes a long amount of time can be viewed that way, if you're not enjoying it at all.

I like the freedom to go elsewhere when I run into a brick wall, to find or build that sledgehammer I need.  I dislike intensely to be constantly thrown against the same wall over and over and over again, with no real variation in approach, and with no choice whatever about it.  Do this and/or die, perhaps forever.  The feelings roused are all negative, and why should that drive me to do anything other than move on to something I enjoy?  It's not as if I lack choices--which brings up one thing I didn't touch on before.  I know I can go play something else, and that's precisely what I've done.  I still feel excluded unnecessarily from some experiences, which is the driving force behind me in this thread.

Also, Rayman Legends comes with Rayman Origins?  Shit, why'd I buy Origins?

You can unlock up to 40 "remastered" (whatever that means) Origins levels in Legends.  Not having played Origins, I don't know how much of the game that is, or how much these levels have changed from the originals.

[K-man]

That makes me conclude that you don't much like that form of difficulty. 

Precisely the point I'm attempting to make about Dark Souls. 

[Quemaqua]

All I see when I read this stuff is complaining that you don't like a game you just don't like. I fail to see why this merits discussion. Okay, so they lose your money and mindshare. Who cares? If that was all everyone was after, there would be nothing but pop music in the world. Jazz doesn't make money. Heavy metal doesn't make money. People create it anyway, because wide distribution and huge profit margins aren't the only reason to make art. Dark Souls is an excellent game, not cheap in the least, and there's a lot of story and backstory that can be dug into, it just doesn't slop it all over you in fancy cinematic sequences with talkative characters. If it did, it would be nothing like what it is, there would be no loneliness or feeling of you-against-everything in a harsh, largely forgotten world. It was crafted to be what it is, and has become a huge success because of that. Sure, it could have been Madden 2015, but it didn't want to be. That already exists. They made something else. Good for them. I mean, isn't that really all that has to be said?

[Cobra951]

Clearly you think so.  I've had my say as well, at length.  So, at this point, you are correct.  Nothing more needs to be said.

Edit:
No.  Fuck that.  I will say something else.  Let's say there's this movie, a Japanese movie, which becomes a sensation with the Japanese-speaking crowd.  Let's also say that the movie's creator and director has Woody-Allen-like control over the release of his movie, and we live in a universe where such control is absolutely possible.  This guy's anal-retentive personality won't bear his darling project to be cheapened by translation to other languages.  Even subtitles are unthinkable to him, because they could never capture all the nuances of the exquisite dialogue.  So he refuses any translation.  Westerners who have read about this masterful project, not wanting to be excluded from the experience, petition the director for a change of heart, to no avail.  He retorts that if they want the experience, they must learn Japanese.  Until they do, his creation is not for them.  They are not worthy.

[Quemaqua]

Wasn't attempting to kill the conversation (and sorry if I came across as annoyed ... it was a rushed post on my way out the door), I guess I just never understood the concept that games need to be wider than they want to be. I always thought that niche stuff was a good thing, not bad. It does limit who can buy and play, as taste will do in general, but with so many games out there, I don't see that as a big obstacle.

[Xessive]

Anyone feel like learning Arabic? One of the most difficult languages in the world! C'mon! Difficulty can be appealing! I can teach you!

[Cobra951]

Haha!     Salaam aleikum is as far as I can go (and I probably misspelled that).

[PyroMenace]

I fail to see why this merits discussion.

Sorry, I am cherry picking this when it is out of context with the rest of your response. I honestly think that the Dark Souls games do merit an in-depth discussion. Because I honestly feel the appeal of these games is overcoming the adversities of unpleasant, unfair, and cheap gameplay experiences. I know a lot of you tried to shy away from using "unfair" and "cheap" against these games but those are the descriptions that are the most accurate from my experience. I'm not talking about the mechanics or systems of the game, but merely the odds stacked against you; traps set in place, boss maneuvers, ridiculous status effects, stupid harsh damage. You are forced to deal with your own frustrations, you either rage quit, or you overcome, or even perhaps both. That is only the surface stuff, there is even more of a myriad of complex systems in there that you may (probably never will) learn if not for an online community - which is one of the biggest parts of playing this. I would just guess that over half of the people who ever played these games would have never finished or come close if not for some sort of guidance. I'm still not sure I want to play through Dark Souls 2, I think it will be a little while yet. I don't know, I want to give the opinion that the games are enjoyable, but in no way dismissive to those who can't get into it.

[Xessive]

Haha!     Salaam aleikum is as far as I can go (and I probably misspelled that).

Haha that's actually pretty good! There's no real spelling for it in the English alphabet, it's phonetic, so you're good

[Quemaqua]

I'm not trying to be dismissive. All prior expressed opinions are valid, and I wouldn't say otherwise. What's invalid to me is the idea that the game should be changed to suit different tastes, or that the game is in some way diminished if it doesn't appeal to a wider audience.

[Xessive]

I'm not trying to be dismissive. All prior expressed opinions are valid, and I wouldn't say otherwise. What's invalid to me is the idea that the game should be changed to suit different tastes, or that the game is in some way diminished if it doesn't appeal to a wider audience.

I agree with you on that. I'm not a fan of From's Souls series but I understand it has a niche market and the games are successful because of their appeal to that demographic; I'd be on the frontlines telling devs not to "mainstream" the games.

Yeah, that's my "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" moment.

If devs want to experiment with games that appeal more to the masses they ought to just make an alternate intellectual property that doesn't mislead customers. I thought it particularly prudent of 2K Games when they renamed the 3rd-person shooter XCOM title to "The Bureau: XCOM Declassified" making the "XCOM" moniker part of the subtitle so people know it's related but recognize that it is different from the XCOM games; ensuring that they wouldn't have droves of players buying it then complaining that it's nothing like XCOM.

It's alright to tweak a formula now and then but they shouldn't change something so radically that they alienate their core fanbase. I know it's important from a business standpoint to attract new customers and that it has to be balanced with retaining the existing ones. Yet too often has a publisher or a developer abused the name or franchise just to sell something.