Tom Chick's crazyman ranting about difficulty levels and game designers not doing their jobs

[tomchick]

@Perky_Goth

On the other hand, Dark Souls sounds entirely like overrated masochism, so have at it.

That’s certainly the conventional wisdom among those of us who haven’t stuck with any of the games after the learning curve gets tough. But I think there’s more to it than that, and it’s a big part of why I respect those games. They present a distinctive combat system and they expect you to get better by learning instead of by simply persevering. You can get to the end of the average game by just spending a certain amount of time (and/or dialing down the difficulty level). But the ethos behind Dark Souls is that it wants to reward you not just for showing up, but for mastering its systems. It refuses to compromise those systems by throwing open the difficulty level so the less committed among us can just sail through to the end. I wish more game designs had – and merited! – that kind of confidence.

@Nesrie

Well this discussion started with Pathfinder and guess what a good DM and GM does… they fudge, the whole screen thing you know, the stuff you can’t see.

Dynamic difficulty adjustment! Way better than asking the player how many hit points they want a kobold to have!

@mono

I don’t care if you change the rules. If you tweak the difficulty. If you GM your own gameplay. Have at it. Put the settings in and let players follow their hearts. Tom’s argument is that if you’re allowed to do such things then the designers have abandoned their post and put game balance in the players hands instead of taking ownership of their own vision. That’s nonsense.

Man, I must really suck at trying to make a point. Because, yeah, what you just wrote up there is nonsense. I’d love for you to show me where you think I said that.

My contention is simple and it’s right up there at the top of the thread: adjustable difficulty levels without any incentives whatsoever are a failure of the difficult task of tuning the fun/frustration equation, which is an integral part of game design.

@Soren_Hoglund

One of the things he consistently complains about is being dumped into a difficulty screen with no context. Which is fair, as far as I’m concerned. Any game could be someone’s first.

Yeah, if you’re going to fail at your job, don’t do it before the game even starts.

-Tom

[roguefrog]

@tomchick

@Perky_Goth

On the other hand, Dark Souls sounds entirely like overrated masochism, so have at it.

That’s certainly the conventional wisdom among those of us who haven’t stuck with any of the games after the learning curve gets tough. But I think there’s more to it than that, and it’s a big part of why I respect those games. They present a distinctive combat system and they expect you to get better by learning instead of by simply persevering. You can get to the end of the average game by just spending a certain amount of time (and/or dialing down the difficulty level). But the ethos behind Dark Souls is that it wants to reward you not just for showing up, but for mastering its systems. It refuses to compromise those systems by throwing open the difficulty level so the less committed among us can just sail through to the end. I wish more game designs had – and merited! – that kind of confidence.

And when you do master those systems, you will grow your third eye, and can then declare those games are not even that hard! (Git gud!)

[mono]

@tomchick

My contention is simple and it’s right up there at the top of the thread: adjustable difficulty levels without any incentives whatsoever are a failure of the difficult task of tuning the fun/frustration equation, which is an integral part of game design.

I’m too lazy, so I’ll concede I may have misunderstood some aspects of your stance. However, I’ll personally disagree on this point as well, since I don’t need meta incentives nor rewards, and could not care less about achievements. If I ratchet up the difficulty and all I get out of it is pride, I’m okay with that.

[Nesrie]

@tomchick

Dynamic difficulty adjustment! Way better than asking the player how many hit points they want a kobold to have!

It would be. I even mentioned that awhile back. A better way to handle difficulty would be if the game could actually recognize a players ability and respond accordingly. This would be especially helpful for someone who starts at Easy but learns and grown to Normal and Hard modes as they play, but we don’t seem to have that kind technology or maybe it’s focus for most games.

[CraigM]

@Nesrie

but we don’t seem to have that kind technology or maybe it’s focus for most games.

Would something like the AI Director in Left for Dead qualify for you here? I personally don’t like that genre, so never played it, but I recall it had some sort of function that did precisely that.

[porousnapkin]

@Nesrie

@tomchick

Dynamic difficulty adjustment! Way better than asking the player how many hit points they want a kobold to have!

It would be. I even mentioned that awhile back. A better way to handle difficulty would be if the game could actually recognize a players ability and respond accordingly. This would be especially helpful for someone who starts at Easy but learns and grown to Normal and Hard modes as they play, but we don’t seem to have that kind technology or maybe it’s focus for most games.

I think dynamic difficulty is in part challenging because what people want out of difficulty is different (as clearly demonstrated by this thread). One player may want a few failures to learn from and overcome, another player may want to almost never experience a set-back.

[Nesrie]

@CraigM

Would something like the AI Director in Left for Dead qualify for you here? I personally don’t like that genre, so never played it, but I recall it had some sort of function that did precisely that.

I love Left 4 Dead, coop. I don’t know that the director is fully realized, but the concept worked for me. I think FPS is the only place I’ve encountered something like that. I think it would be great if games could do more of that and in other genres.

So many of these games kind of rely on previous knowledge or piss poor tutorials to get you going which is fine for some. I mean I don’t mind quitting and starting over or losing and starting again that sort of thing but for RPGs, you kind of commit a bit early to some things and if there is combination that doesn’t work, like at all…

I don’t agree with Tom at all on the nature of challenge or the experience of it, but I do kind of agree if there’s a combination in a game that flat out doesn’t work, and they only allowed it because some die-hard Pathfinder vet would not be happy without it, that was probably not a good choice. I am mostly against flat out not allowing things because yeah sometimes you pick the unusual or hard one because that’s the RP part of it but the combat part also needs to work so…

@porousnapkin

I think dynamic difficulty is in part challenging because what people want out of difficulty is different (as clearly demonstrated by this thread). One player may want a few failures to learn from and overcome, another player may want to almost never experience a set-back.

Well I am not sure if you’ve played Left 4 Dead or not. the AI piece @ CraigM is talking about doesn’t just look at you and say everyone is limping and almost dead so I’ll let them win. It doesn’t work quite like that. It supposedly scales back a bit but yeah you can still lose.

[tomchick]

@mono

However, I’ll personally disagree on this point as well, since I don’t need meta incentives nor rewards, and could not care less about achievements. If I ratchet up the difficulty and all I get out of it is pride, I’m okay with that.

Yep, you and pretty much everyone else who plays and makes games. And that’s okay, because my opinions about what constitutes good game design are my own and I don’t expect anyone else to share them. Especially on an idiosyncratic issue like this. For instance, it’s not really something I bring up in reviews. I’m happy to rant about it colloquially, but as far as a critical observation about game design, I’m not sure it’s something most people care about or even notice.

-Tom

[tomchick]

@CraigM

Would something like the AI Director in Left for Dead qualify for you here? I personally don’t like that genre, so never played it, but I recall it had some sort of function that did precisely that.

That’s a great example. The best way to do dynamic difficulty is under-the-hood (or behind the DM screen, as the tabletop RPG nerds in this thread have said) and as an integral part of the design. Left 4 Dead is a perfect example.

-Tom

[KristiGaines]

My last 2 cents here. I wonder if it may be a product of how many games we play as well. I, for one, have played 5 different games over the last few weeks. And I will say this, I would rather hit one difficulty button (in the middle) and try and play THAT game as it was hypothetically meant to be played. Quick.

“meant to be played” = I wonder if that turns out to be the big argument in a nutshell.

(btw Lk I plan on killing that shark with my bow – )

[Nesrie]

@tomchick

I’m happy to rant about it colloquially, but as far as a critical observation about game design, I’m not sure it’s something most people care about or even notice.

I can’t remember where you mentioned that your reviews were mostly about your experience, so why don’t you mention it? I mean, I simply avoid games that I certain I won’t enjoy, and some of those include the difficulty involved. It’s easy to do. There are plenty of games out there, but if think a game, like Pathfinder, which took on too much of the source material at the cost of being so unbalanced that you believe they put the weight of fixing that on the player’s shoulder, why wouldn’t you mention it in a review which, again, I thought was meant to be more about your experience than anything else.

[roguefrog]

@Nesrie

@tomchick

Dynamic difficulty adjustment! Way better than asking the player how many hit points they want a kobold to have!

A better way to handle difficulty would be if the game could actually recognize a players ability and respond accordingly.

God Hand does this. If you are doing too good the difficulty will climax and then it kicks your ass…kind of hilarious.

[sillhouette]

Most game developers play their game a lot, even if they are not testers. They know how it is tuned and what their different “difficulty” settings mean. For me, one of the most important things to see is the text where they describe HOW THE DIFFICULTY SETTINGS MATTER. I am probably only going to play your game one time. I don’t want to try it several times and see how hard it is before I decide on what difficulty I want and play “for real”. I want the difficulty settings to either be invisible, or be clear enough to help me decide which setting I want right from the start. It is very rare that a game is clear enough in text describing how difficulty settings matter: is it just turning off QTEs, does it give all the monsters 30% more HP, does the AI always attack the weakest character, is there secretly less chance of lucky events, does the villain plot advance at twice the speed? Who has any idea what “Challenging but Fair” means?!

How about a game using the tutorial to test how I play and SUGGEST what difficulty settings would be easy/challenging/tough based on my performance… slow reactions, poor aim, non-synergy skill choices, never picked up items --> maybe you want Roleplayer difficulty; super twitch combat reactions, munchkin optimal combat character build, searched every drawer for items --> maybe you want to play on Ultimate-Nightmare setting.

“This setting uses the same mediocre AI, but the other nations get double income” may be too honest to admit on the start screen. (ahem Civ)

[tomchick]

@Nesrie

I can’t remember where you mentioned that your reviews were mostly about your experience, so why don’t you mention it?

That’s a good question, Nesrie. I guess because I try to just roll with it. When games dump the difficulty level in my lap, I just put it on normal and ignore the whole shebang (unless I’m streaming and have people to complain to!).

But I can think of times it affects my experience and figures into a review, both negatively and positively. I think in my Prey review, I complained that running around shooting stuff with a shotgun ends up being a catch-all solution that robs the game of some of its personality. If there had been some incentive for me to crank up the difficulty level, I probably would have had a more wide-ranging experience in terms of applying different solutions to the various situations. In terms of actually flexing the interaction of the character abilities, environments, and monsters. In terms of making tough choices for upgrades. The Mooncrash DLC for Prey, which has a really cool rogue-like approach to difficulty, let me experience a lot of what was missing for me in the main game.

But then when a game does include difficulty tuning as part the gameplay systems, you can bet I’ll call it out. I loved, for instance, how Agents of Mayhem lets you set a difficulty each time you leave base, with a commensurate boost to xp and loot. I’m pretty sure I mentioned that somewhere in all my enthusiastic burbling.

But your Pathfinder point is a good one, as well. If I play through it, I’ll do what I always do and put it on normal and leave it. It sounds like you think I would run into balancing issues. If that were the case, it would certainly be something I’d bring up, especially since I probably wouldn’t be doing any special tuning to the difficulty level to try to fix it. That’s where the “it’s not my job” part of my screed comes in. So I’d be stuck with a game with balancing issues. Two stars!

But that was one of the reasons I inadvertently derailed the Pathfinder thread. You guys’ conversation about tuning difficulty was all the more fascinating to me because it’s something I wouldn’t do if I were playing.

@sillhouette

For me, one of the most important things to see is the text where they describe HOW THE DIFFICULTY SETTINGS MATTER. I am probably only going to play your game one time. I don’t want to try it several times and see how hard it is before I decide on what difficulty I want and play “for real”. I want the difficulty settings to either be invisible, or be clear enough to help me decide which setting I want right from the start.

Preach on, Brother Sillhouette!

@sillhouette

How about a game using the tutorial to test how I play and SUGGEST what difficulty settings would be easy/challenging/tough based on my performance

Yeah, I like this idea! I see this in racing games sometimes. The game starts you out driving a race, even before you see a menu. It’s pretty much a gimme, but then it recommends a difficulty level based on how well you did as it drops you into the game proper.

-Tom

[WarpRattler]

If the aesthetic doesn’t turn you off, and assuming they haven’t neutered all the gameplay systems since the DS original, you’ll love the custom difficulty stuff in The World Ends With You when that comes out on Switch on Friday, Tom. Lots of ways to make the game harder for yourself and get more and better rewards for doing so.

[Ginger_Yellow]

Some sports games, too.

[Nesrie]

@sillhouette

How about a game using the tutorial to test how I play and SUGGEST what difficulty settings would be easy/challenging/tough based on my performance…

I like this idea too. The problem is, tutorials are often crap, terribly implemented or tedious, sometimes all of the above if the game has one at all. since we live in a world where so many games never seem to actually be finished, like they just add and add to it, not slight tweaks but sweeping changes, the tutorials can often lag behind and not even represent the game anymore. It’s also an issue if the tuorial parses out the learning, say over the first handful of levels but… all of that could be addressed if the goal of a tutorial was to help you learn what difficulty you might enjoy the most.

None of that fixes Pathfinders concern though, and i am not basing that just on what Tom said but also Armando and others as well as memory of what the older RPG games were like. They give you all these options, kind of pretend that you roleplay the unqiue and interesting and then might punish the hell out of you for making that choice later, and by later it might be 20-30 hours in before you realized you didn’t do it “right.”

[nijimeijer]

I have a friend who wrote an entire book on why videogame tutorials generally suck, how they suck, and rare examples of when they don’t.

It’s a problem devs are generally aware of, but the realities of development make it one that’s hard to fix. Some bullet points -

• Tutorials usually come at the end of the dev cycle for obvious reasons
• They often either preface a Holy Shit Moment which is designed to draw you into the game (meaning they’re rushed because they don’t want to lose you), or they come after (so they’re rushed because they don’t want you bored after the HSM)
• Players don’t read text boxes unless the box pop up pauses the game. But if the box pauses the game, players get angry and spam the button that closes it, meaning they still don’t read it
• The best method is “tutorial by doing”, which takes the most time because it involves a lot of design, playtester, and iteration time, which for the aforementioned reason of Tutorials Are Made Last is tough to do. And even when they do it that way, sometimes it’s the lazy way of a simple objective: “Do this Thing”, as opposed to an integration into the game to both show a player the How and the Why of a feature. Example: “Craft Item X” as a tutorial instead of demonstrating why crafting (and all that goes with it) may be useful.

Sometimes, you run across the rare game with a really individual USP that does a tutorial right because it’s planned from the start due to the knowledge that players will be unfamiliar with the feature otherwise. But that doesn’t happen often.

There are always strong tutorial advocates within a good studio (usually the head of the playtest department) - but the reality of development is that it typically gets the short shrift.

[KristiGaines]

Niki out of just simple curiosity can we name a few games where the tutorial doesn’t suck? I am at a loss.

[lordkosc]

You nooblets , you haven’t experienced a tutorial until you play thru the 6+ hour one for AI War and its expansions. ;)