Thoughts on game difficulty

ktfright

i was on gamasutra today, and I was reading Adam Saltsman's thoughts on game design. He made canabalt. That got me thinking...do you guys make your games hard to beat, or easier? I personally like making my game R-type difficult, because it is ridiculously difficult, but also keeps me wanting to play more.

quantumsheep

I always find Adam's thoughts on game design to be really interesting.

Personally, I like to ease people into playing my games. But getting the balance right between too easy and too hard is bloody difficult!

Some games are fine with just one life (canabalt, for example) while others could do with having more lives in them. Or the chance to get more lives.

As long as the player doesn't feel 'cheated', I think you're doing fine.

QS

Edit: As an aside, Mr. Funkleberry played Gravitrixx yesterday and squeeled with joy when he first died. He'd got to level 12 and there really wasn't anything threatening up to that point. He just felt it was the perfect place to lose a life - you've played the game for long enough to get used to it, and *then* the danger appears.

evopanop

I agree with QS. I think that you need to find that balance or middle ground. Not too difficult, but not too easy either. Although, it does depend on the type of game too. Canabalt is ridiculously hard, but also ridiculously awesome - the only major downside I see with a game like Canabalt is that even though you have that initial fun factor that keeps you hooked and wanting to beat your score/distance, at some point you will tire of it fairly quickly because that is the ONLY thing you do in the game. The scenery doesn't really change, there are no other levels, no story line, etc. In any case, I think it really just depends on what the focus of the game is going to be.

ktfright

evopanop said:
I agree with QS. I think that you need to find that balance or middle ground. Not too difficult, but not too easy either. Although, it does depend on the type of game too. Canabalt is ridiculously hard, but also ridiculously awesome - the only major downside I see with a game like Canabalt is that even though you have that initial fun factor that keeps you hooked and wanting to beat your score/distance, at some point you will tire of it fairly quickly because that is the ONLY thing you do in the game. The scenery doesn't really change, there are no other levels, no story line, etc. In any case, I think it really just depends on what the focus of the game is going to be.

I agree! I'm re-releasing a game I made in the beginning of the year, and I wanted to create adaptable difficulty. Its a pretty short game akin to Canabalt, but its short and sweet.I also have some bigger, deeper games in the works also.

quantumsheep

evopanop said:
I agree with QS. I think that you need to find that balance or middle ground. Not too difficult, but not too easy either. Although, it does depend on the type of game too. Canabalt is ridiculously hard, but also ridiculously awesome - the only major downside I see with a game like Canabalt is that even though you have that initial fun factor that keeps you hooked and wanting to beat your score/distance, at some point you will tire of it fairly quickly because that is the ONLY thing you do in the game. The scenery doesn't really change, there are no other levels, no story line, etc. In any case, I think it really just depends on what the focus of the game is going to be.

I take your points about Canabalt, and agree that it is indeed awesome!

Your criticism of it brings up another dilemma akin to the too hard/easy one. Namely - do you make your game for quick 5 minute bursts of play or do you create huge epic games you can play for hours at a time.

Finding a balance between those two areas is just as difficult as the hard/easy balance.

Personally, I play on my iPhone in very short 5 minute bursts, which Canabalt is perfect for. I find it a bit small for very involved games, and I can't remember the last time I played an iPhone game for hours on end. I think it was Peggle!

But then, Peggle you could play for just five minutes at a time too.

So - a balance between short and extended periods of play, as well as difficulty. This game design stuff is easy!

QS

ktfright

tshirtbooth said:
ktfright do you have a link to the art. ?

yeah, but im still polishing some stuff out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54831268@N05/5112938993/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54831268@N05/5112938943/
None of the art is final.
I dont want any type of pixel dithering, so it runs better than how it looks.

@QS I'm addicted to Peggle too!

ktfright

Oh... hold on...

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AdamSaltsman/20100130/4274/iPhone_Design__Marketing_Notes.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AdamSaltsman/20100929/6096/Tuning_Canabalt.php

Mybad

Snow

It depends. The game must be fun. For choosing difficulty, when I come up with a game concept I first develope it as very minimal - that is to say - I develop and fine tune the core gameplay first before I start adding to the game. I took this approach as I was inspired by the game N by www.metanetsoftware.com. (It is allowed to post URL's, yes?). N is a very minimalistic game and Mare and Raigan told me once that the best way to design a game is to be in an empty room free of distractions and start with the core and up. Then as you do that, you start to look at difficulty.

So to get to the point - the reason I'm saying this is that when the design is right, then the level of difficulty you choose to be in the game will match. You don't always reward the player for getting as far as possible, but the player needs the right motivation. If the game is too difficult to be worth spending hours trying to beat a level or get past 3000 meters, then it's not going to get anywhere. I made a game in flash that is also akin to Canabalt, but it's too difficult. It just doesn't have enough substance to really justify dying in the first 20 meters repeatedly.

Also, the more difficult you make your game - the more you add complexity. I found out that in my flash game to give the player just enough room to survive at certain areas took an immense amount of timing, math, testing, rewriting random timer code over and over. Bleh. That stupid game is fun, but currently on the backburner for both lack of substance and that my f-ing timing is still off. You WILL die without a chance to survive between 2 to 5 minutes. There is always a "no escape" scenario that happens in my game where there is no possible way the player can jump or dodge an obstacle. It still drives me nuts just thinking about it. But yeah, that is how tight I made mine.

EDIT: Want to add. Another excellent example to look at is Adventure for the Atari 2600. You can get the rom over at www.atariage.com. I believe it is now legal to download them and play them on an emulator. In that game you had 3 difficulty settings and sometimes I play for hours on the second. I just wish I could kill that stupid bat.

ktfright

Snow said:
It depends. The game must be fun. For choosing difficulty, when I come up with a game concept I first develope it as very minimal - that is to say - I develop and fine tune the core gameplay first before I start adding to the game. I took this approach as I was inspired by the game N by www.metanetsoftware.com. (It is allowed to post URL's, yes?). N is a very minimalistic game and Mare and Raigan told me once that the best way to design a game is to be in an empty room free of distractions and start with the core and up. Then as you do that, you start to look at difficulty.

So to get to the point - the reason I'm saying this is that when the design is right, then the level of difficulty you choose to be in the game will match. You don't always reward the player for getting as far as possible, but the player needs the right motivation. If the game is too difficult to be worth spending hours trying to beat a level or get past 3000 meters, then it's not going to get anywhere. I made a game in flash that is also akin to Canabalt, but it's too difficult. It just doesn't have enough substance to really justify dying in the first 20 meters repeatedly.

Also, the more difficult you make your game - the more you add complexity. I found out that in my flash game to give the player just enough room to survive at certain areas took an immense amount of timing, math, testing, rewriting random timer code over and over. Bleh. That stupid game is fun, but currently on the backburner for both lack of substance and that my f-ing timing is still off. You WILL die without a chance to survive between 2 to 5 minutes. There is always a "no escape" scenario that happens in my game where there is no possible way the player can jump or dodge an obstacle. It still drives me nuts just thinking about it. But yeah, that is how tight I made mine.

EDIT: Want to add. Another excellent example to look at is Adventure for the Atari 2600. You can get the rom over at www.atariage.com. I believe it is now legal to download them and play them on an emulator. In that game you had 3 difficulty settings and sometimes I play for hours on the second. I just wish I could kill that stupid bat.

Great add! I just wonder also, Does advanced level design come in to play when talking about difficulty,and it is also possible to "manufacture" luck or tune it to the players favor as a way of easing them into the gameplay mechanic without making it seem obvious.

quantumsheep

Snow said:
EDIT: Want to add. Another excellent example to look at is Adventure for the Atari 2600. You can get the rom over at www.atariage.com. I believe it is now legal to download them and play them on an emulator. In that game you had 3 difficulty settings and sometimes I play for hours on the second. I just wish I could kill that stupid bat.

Just a quick note for those that want to look up Adventure - there's a free version of it for the iphone - you can grab it here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adventure/id296563933?mt=8

Cheers,

QS

quantumsheep

ktfright said:
Great add! I just wonder also, Does advanced level design come in to play when talking about difficulty,and it is also possible to "manufacture" luck or tune it to the players favor as a way of easing them into the gameplay mechanic without making it seem obvious.

Oh, absolutely.

For example - If you were fighting a boss in a shoot 'em up, you could have a health pack spawn when the player's health is down to 10% say.

They would still have to reach the health pack, so there's still a risk-reward mechanic in place - but you've manufactured the chance to beat the boss still.

QS

ktfright

quantumsheep said:
Oh, absolutely.

For example - If you were fighting a boss in a shoot 'em up, you could have a health pack spawn when the player's health is down to 10% say.

They would still have to reach the health pack, so there's still a risk-reward mechanic in place - but you've manufactured the chance to beat the boss still.

QS

Nice!

evopanop

I definitely agree with everything that's been said about the risk/reward mechanic and manufacturing "luck". I think that, to a degree, some of that is a necessity simply because of the fact that you can make the gameplay more engaging by dramatically increasing the perceived "risk factor", at least from the player's perspective, and still make it so that the player has a very good chance of succeeding, thus moving along the story or game and keeping the player engaged and interested.

I also 100% agree with what QS said earlier about short bursts of gameplay VS long storylines. And, personally, I think that it IS possible to have both. As an example, the game that I'm working on right now is an action platformer. I plan on having relatively short levels that can be beat typically in about 5 minutes or less. However, I do plan on having "comic book"-like cut-scenes between levels that drive the story along. The game has a very epic storyline. So, I think that having the right balance of difficulty, complexity, ease of play, short burst playtime and an engaging storyline will really guaranty success - at least in my eyes. And, great artwork doesn't hurt either, I'm sure. :P But, what do I know? I'm just a newb here... that's been playing videogames his entire life, LOL.