The difficult thing about difficulty

[CFFJR]

^I think Mortal Kombat and SF do that to compensate for the fact that the AI is actually pretty shitty.

That makes sense, but its still ridiculously annoying.

Nothing ticks me off in a fighting game like the computer reading my inputs.

As much as I love Mortal Kombat 9, it too is guilty of this, to the point that the computer was matching my inputs for projectiles and other specials down to an instant, so we'd cancel each other out repeatedly.

I actually tested it a couple of times and kept throwing projectiles, and it got so bad that I couldn't keep up with it, and the comp would anticipate the input enough that theirs would eventually come out first.

[Lodestar]

Not really about a specific game, but I hate games with rubber band AI. I wouldn't call it broken game design, since it was implemented intentionally just to artificially increase the challenge. It breaks the game for me because it gets to a point where no matter how good you are, the computer will always catch up.

The thing is that the game artificially increases the CPU players' skills, or stats, or speed beyond what it should be capable of at that time, so you're technically playing against someone who can cheat at the code level.

Can you give me an example of something that utilizes this "rubber band AI"? Just curious as to how that works.

On another note, can anyone cite some examples of games that end up being harder on easy mode? I think Valkyrie Profile was one of them. Wondering if there are other games like that.

Racing games where no matter how well you do, the other cars always seem to be just behind you

Or fighting games where the computer reads your controller input so your opponent always knows what move you're doing. Mortal Kombat games are notorious for this. Then you have the Street Fighter II games where you'd see Guile throw a sonic boom at you from a standing position when players know that you have to hold back for two seconds to "charge" it before you can fire off a sonic boom. So basically computer Guile SHOULD be walking backward or blocking for a few seconds before he can do a sonic boom

Oh, I know every cheap game design trick in the book. The fact that I've seen it all is actually why I have a lower tolerance for difficult games these days because I can so easily spot the contrived crap that designers often do rather than find legit ways to challenge players

Oh yeah, Ridge Racer was quite fond of that.

As for the others, I can't agree with the input-reading stuff, I know it exists, but I don't believe that qualifies as a rubber band A.I., as it affects everyone that plays regardless of their skill level. Since I play Capcom and SNK fighters, the A.I. tends to focus more on frames and priorities. If you do a move that has some poor start-up frames with no invincibility, they'll use a higher priority move instead. In Mark of the Wolves, the A.I. is more likely to counter you as you're doing moves instead of in the recovery frames of a move that was blocked or whiffed. These types of A.I. love to do unrealistic reactionary stuff, but qualifying them as rubber band A.I. would be a compliment, as they're quite rigid systems that can easily be exploited once you find the holes. They follow a very basic flow chart and never deviate from it.

[BurningDoom]

I'm scared to play on easy anymore. Even if a game is super hard, I still do Normal. It just sucks when your getting far on a game in the Easy setting then suddenly it tells you "Please try a higher difficulty challenge" and suddenly ends, making you start-over at the beginning if you want to actually play through to the true ending.

[Lodestar]

...or they withhold stages. Lots of SHMUPs ported to home consoles utilized that in order to force players to get better in order to reap the rewards. Strangely enough, the game I posted on page one ends at level 6 on easy mode - there are two extra levels past that point. The game is on easy by default, and the only other option is "normal." What a load of shit.

[neilencio]

Also, games that rely on randomness/luck even though it adds very little to the game.

For example, with a game like Tetris, the randomness of the shapes you get is actually a very important part of the game. It will lose its appeal if the falling tetrads follow a set(and easily memorizable) pattern.

On the other hand, there are fighting games like Dragonball Z Budokai series that use rock/paper/scissors in some of the struggles. It completely removes the aspect of skill from the fight.

[Xeogred]

I love difficulty, but I'm going to be honest and figure I'm in the minority here, I don't really like games like Super Meat Boy, Trials, VVVVVV, etc. The lucky trial and error instant death kind of thing isn't my style. I like these games playing them a bit at a friends, but they get old to me after awhile and I always think I'm glad I didn't buy them myself.

Now to contradict that, I got every achievement in MM9 and MM10, that includes Mr. Perfect in MM10, which took like a week itself just casually playing off and on and trying to beat the final Wily stages by perfecting the boss rush and Wily's fight in one go... holy shit. I just figured since I got all the achievements in MM9 I had to do it again, lol.

I've beaten the first Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) on Very Hard, only got to the later chapters on the second tournament if anyone remembers that, when all the enemies were replaced and I'm pretty sure black ninja's were in the FIRST stage. DMC4 on the hardest difficulties, other games like that on hard (probably some of the Onimusha's), Halo and Reach solo'd on Legendary, FEAR on Extreme (one of the toughest challenges EVER, anyone else accomplish this? On top of finished the Instant Action stages on Extreme), etc etc etc. I love shmups and old games like Battletoads that are pretty tough. Tactics Ogre (SNES) that I completed earlier this year was also probably the hardest RPG I've ever played, but it was so damn fun and rewarding I pushed through. It got easier as the game went, but it was so brutal early on I had to sacrifice about 10 characters just to pass some levels.

For a first run on games thesedays I always go normal at least.

[Erik_Twice]

I think difficulty, low or high has another dimension: fair or unfair.

We all know the examples. When the player, skill aside, isn't capable of reacting or solving a problem presented in the game, it's unfair. Leaps of faith, memorization, disjointed hitboxes...that kind of stuff.

I however do think that good games tend to be difficult. It's not necesary but certain design choices that make games better lead to more difficulty.

For example, XCOM. In XCOM your soldiers die in one or two shots, forcing you to use tactics, coordinate your team and use your weapons in a smart way instead of emulating Rambo. Were the game easier you would just move and shoot, making for a worse game.

However, if we make the game too hard the options start to shrink and you will end up with a single way of playing that is probably not very fun. (Turtling, camping corners, only using only attacks with a very low risk, etc).

Balacing the difficulty against the options the player has it's a difficult thing to do that varies depending on the main design mechanics of the game.

Player skill may affect those options. If I have really good aim, what is supposed to be a stealthy shooter may turn into Contra. This is where difficulty levels come in, they tweak the game so that skill doesn't reduce or increase too much the options given to the player, as that would ruin the design of the game.


Some games whose difficulty is a direct result of their design and wouldn't work if they were much easier:

Castlevania
Any Bullet Hell Shmup.
Hell, any shmup counts.
Space Harrier
Phoenix Wright (Compare the first and third games. Which one is better? Which one is harder?)
Punch-Out

[Ivo]

Good post and great point Norris. If a game is ridiculously easy it really invalidates a lot of the game (for example, any RPG elements such as equipment or skill increases become more moot), and conversely if it is ridiculous hard such that you have to either grind out (when possible) or really master certain specific tactics to do stuff then it is probably not going to be fun for most people (imagine if you needed to speed run Quake, rocket jumps and so on, in order to complete it).

Ivo.

[emwearz]

Great topic.

Things like Castlevania's jump back when getting hit pisses me off quite a lot to the point of it just being cheap and make the game much harder and more frustrating than it needed to be.

[Curlypaul]

What General Norris just said.

I like challenging games but it has to seem fair and it has to seem like progress is being made.

How did the difficulty get in the way and why would it be better if the game were easier?

I've been playing the Sands of Time recently, and make some comparisons to the original PoP that fit this question quite well.

The original game was pretty difficult, the controls take a bit of getting used to and many sections take a lot of practise and trial and error to get thtu. This makes it very rewarding in a couple of ways: firstly I like the feeling of having totally mastered the earlier screens in the lever that seemed so hard not so long ago, and reaching the end of the level feels like a massive acheivement.

On the other hand, the Sands of Time has incredibly forgiving controls: the Prince gravitates towards platforms, button presses do not require very precise timing, and of course you can rewind time if you do screw up. Its low difficultly is what makes this game fun for me - I perform outragous acrobatics so effortlessly, which leaves me free to enjoy the cinematic experience of it all.

I'm not saying that either game is better than the other, but they are great for polar opposite reasons