Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Locker
Play ListsSTATUS
Where's the line between over-hard and challenging? I can't seem to find it.
halibabica- 03/14/2017 12:09 PM
Posts 
Close
author=halibabica
I already played Donkey Kong Country Returns' Time Attack mode. The horrors I've endured...
And you've got it.
It's more on the pressure the player gets that forces him/her to not be patient to do what needs to be done.
Have tools n ways to do the task, imho. And improve. (as in : things you can actually remember and notice and plan and tweak).
Which is why most times timed stuff really gets on your nerves. I remember not being able to beat Prinny Can I Really Be the Hero because I was too slow in mashing that attack button. Literally. (didn't help I took a break shortly before him buuut).. I just don't think I will be physically able to do it even if I put in practice.
"welp, try going to training mode for 20 hours and see if your general responsiveness got better" doesn't help.
The best challenging game I played oughta still be Devil Survivor cause you had so many damn ways to set up things in your favor (and thus there was a wiiide gap of how people would do, or how much they leveled etc). There's a reason a number of pure action games have a difficulty setting (like Zone of the Ender's)
I remember Rogue Legacy to basically enabling you to rank up your base stats - AND the really difficult stuff comes after you beat the castle once. So if you didn't like it you could jump off and feel satisfied.
Difficult games with proper dodge mechanic have a lot of leeway to practice, but there often are secondary things to do.
I love Monster Hunter-type games and I remember God Eater having a boss that was literally taking a previous boss and doubling the animation speed of everything. It was really pushing it, but it still worked.
Why? In addition to just "dealing with it", you can get equipment that lets you last a while longer against him specifically, and/or that increases your animation (of some stuff) or item speed so you can heal up faster even if you do take many hits (and try to get by with the limited potions - tho even then you can craft n use rarer stuff you usually don't need and you can't freely buy at that point to increase your odds).
And that little bit extra made me continue and actually beat him with ease (cause I then had the extra odds and felt em, and felt confident continuing. The practice inbetween did the rest)
Dark Souls is an entire game about teaching you "this stuff you look out for next time. thx" And it works. And it is good. And even dying you still have ways to recover your soul progress, you lose no equipment whatsoever and can jump straight back. If I lost any of that, you bet I wouldn't enjoy dying as much as I did.
It's the same reason most point and click adventure's puzzles are horrendous. You either get it, or you don't. And if you don't, you have about zero chance of solving it unless you use a guide or walkthrough helper.
It's also why Megaman-type games usually target a certain crowd that can deal with the stuff.
And in those games you better give a little bit of a learning curve too so people learn what they can do where without being overwhelmed first.
Which is why most times timed stuff really gets on your nerves. I remember not being able to beat Prinny Can I Really Be the Hero because I was too slow in mashing that attack button. Literally. (didn't help I took a break shortly before him buuut).. I just don't think I will be physically able to do it even if I put in practice.
"welp, try going to training mode for 20 hours and see if your general responsiveness got better" doesn't help.
The best challenging game I played oughta still be Devil Survivor cause you had so many damn ways to set up things in your favor (and thus there was a wiiide gap of how people would do, or how much they leveled etc). There's a reason a number of pure action games have a difficulty setting (like Zone of the Ender's)
I remember Rogue Legacy to basically enabling you to rank up your base stats - AND the really difficult stuff comes after you beat the castle once. So if you didn't like it you could jump off and feel satisfied.
Difficult games with proper dodge mechanic have a lot of leeway to practice, but there often are secondary things to do.
I love Monster Hunter-type games and I remember God Eater having a boss that was literally taking a previous boss and doubling the animation speed of everything. It was really pushing it, but it still worked.
Why? In addition to just "dealing with it", you can get equipment that lets you last a while longer against him specifically, and/or that increases your animation (of some stuff) or item speed so you can heal up faster even if you do take many hits (and try to get by with the limited potions - tho even then you can craft n use rarer stuff you usually don't need and you can't freely buy at that point to increase your odds).
And that little bit extra made me continue and actually beat him with ease (cause I then had the extra odds and felt em, and felt confident continuing. The practice inbetween did the rest)
Dark Souls is an entire game about teaching you "this stuff you look out for next time. thx" And it works. And it is good. And even dying you still have ways to recover your soul progress, you lose no equipment whatsoever and can jump straight back. If I lost any of that, you bet I wouldn't enjoy dying as much as I did.
It's the same reason most point and click adventure's puzzles are horrendous. You either get it, or you don't. And if you don't, you have about zero chance of solving it unless you use a guide or walkthrough helper.
It's also why Megaman-type games usually target a certain crowd that can deal with the stuff.
And in those games you better give a little bit of a learning curve too so people learn what they can do where without being overwhelmed first.
It's a shame the style of Dark Souls doesn't appeal to me, because it seems like one of those rare games that walks the line of "challenging but fair" perfectly. What does it do that other games don't such that players are willing to learn and get better instead of ragequit? Most of the time the impression I get is that people haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate being challenged and would sooner blame the game than their own ineptitude. WHERE IS THE LINE I CAN'T FIND IT
IS DARK SOULS THE LINE
IS DARK SOULS THE LINE
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Challenging:
- Requires a thorough understanding of the game's mechanics.
- Player mistakes are easy to identify and correct without being too punishing*.
- A fair* learning curve.
Overly hard:
- Trial-and-error gameplay.
- Too many things happening at once to be able to process*. Think Touhou.
- Enemies are literal HP sponges with no specific strategy at all.
- Player mistakes are hard* to identify and correct due to a multitude of variables outside the player's control.
- Overly steep* learning curve.
- When you have to read a 10 page essay just to figure out the basics.
*: The definitions of these are VERY subjective, which is why it's so difficult to draw the line between challenging and overly hard. People have different tolerance levels for each point here, especially on higher difficulties.
EDIT: And yes. Dark Souls is the line. Dark Souls 2 specifically, in my opinion. DS1 was great, but DS2 did the best job getting new players accustomed to the game.
- Requires a thorough understanding of the game's mechanics.
- Player mistakes are easy to identify and correct without being too punishing*.
- A fair* learning curve.
Overly hard:
- Trial-and-error gameplay.
- Too many things happening at once to be able to process*. Think Touhou.
- Enemies are literal HP sponges with no specific strategy at all.
- Player mistakes are hard* to identify and correct due to a multitude of variables outside the player's control.
- Overly steep* learning curve.
- When you have to read a 10 page essay just to figure out the basics.
*: The definitions of these are VERY subjective, which is why it's so difficult to draw the line between challenging and overly hard. People have different tolerance levels for each point here, especially on higher difficulties.
EDIT: And yes. Dark Souls is the line. Dark Souls 2 specifically, in my opinion. DS1 was great, but DS2 did the best job getting new players accustomed to the game.
author=halibabica
It's a shame the style of Dark Souls doesn't appeal to me, because it seems like one of those rare games that walks the line of "challenging but fair" perfectly. What does it do that other games don't such that players are willing to learn and get better instead of ragequit? Most of the time the impression I get is that people haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate being challenged and would sooner blame the game than their own ineptitude. WHERE IS THE LINE I CAN'T FIND IT
IS DARK SOULS THE LINE
Then again, I remember AdmiralBulldog doing some really cool feats in Dark Souls 3 (first try on final boss? ez). I do like Dark Souls' aptitude to show if the player is up to the challenge. The player either gives the input or not. It's not just challenging, but pretty much teaches you other stuff and how to fight dirty.
Either Dark Souls or some game that really tests you out. But then again, there's Takeshi's Challenge.
And that's not even the line, it's over the critical value.
Dark Souls is probably the line, tho it really IS meant to be teaching more.
But since you will die a lot in the process that can put people off (to me death felt soo good - in comparison to most any other game) and when you lose your patience and start NOT looking out for the things you wanna be looking out for, it will immediately show.
Have ways the game tells you you can do better (or where exactly you are going wrong - having a certain chest eat you every time you try to open it is pretty straightforward. Finding a difference between hitting the real and the fake chest makes it good for future chests).
Many frustrating games are frustrating because .. you have no idea what the hell you could be doing better, or you are doing wrong, but it just doesn't work whatever you try. Which is also where Dark Souls can be tough inbetween depending on what you use (like heavy armor vs light n stuff), BUT has stuff that can be tweaked n tested out.
Have ways to counter what is thrown at you and deal with it better.
Beyond the pure mechanical "well DUH, your reaction speed is 0.1 seconds too slow, mash that button faster"
Edit: Yeah, what Red Nova said. There.
But since you will die a lot in the process that can put people off (to me death felt soo good - in comparison to most any other game) and when you lose your patience and start NOT looking out for the things you wanna be looking out for, it will immediately show.
Have ways the game tells you you can do better (or where exactly you are going wrong - having a certain chest eat you every time you try to open it is pretty straightforward. Finding a difference between hitting the real and the fake chest makes it good for future chests).
Many frustrating games are frustrating because .. you have no idea what the hell you could be doing better, or you are doing wrong, but it just doesn't work whatever you try. Which is also where Dark Souls can be tough inbetween depending on what you use (like heavy armor vs light n stuff), BUT has stuff that can be tweaked n tested out.
Have ways to counter what is thrown at you and deal with it better.
Beyond the pure mechanical "well DUH, your reaction speed is 0.1 seconds too slow, mash that button faster"
Edit: Yeah, what Red Nova said. There.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=KatanaHiroshi
Either Dark Souls or some game that really tests you out. But then again, there's Takeshi's Challenge.
Takeshi's Challenge is a wonderful test of the limits of human sanity. I heard that, in Japan, the game is STILL used as an execution device for especially dangerous criminals.
author=Red_Nova
Takeshi's Challenge is a wonderful test of the limits of human sanity. I heard that, in Japan, the game is STILL used as an execution device for especially dangerous criminals.
And this was the only time where using video games as an execution device is an exception, especially for the ones who have "crimes against humanity".
from Takeshi's Challenge wiki
Throwing 30,720 punches on the opening game screen will also take the player directly to the game's ending.
I have to acknowledge this factoid. It cannot be ignored.
So it boils down to what the player can do about the challenge, and whether the game effectively conveys what can be done. That makes a lot of sense. Now I just wish it were easier to tell if the game is at fault or the player is just a dingus.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=halibabica
So it boils down to what the player can do about the challenge, and whether the game effectively conveys what can be done. That makes a lot of sense. Now I just wish it were easier to tell if the game is at fault or the player is just a dingus.
That's where testing comes in. If you can give your game to someone who has NEVER seen it before and they can play it without any guidance from you, then you're doing it right. That's why I always try to get opinions on my games from people who have never seen them before to see if I'm conveying information correctly.
Unfortunately, no game is idiot-proof. There will always be some people that will fail for various reasons, and it's impossible (not hard. Impossible) to account for every single playstyle. Keep in mind the people you're making the game for, and tailor your tutorials as best as you can.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
You can't find the line because it's a gradient and the tipover point varies from player to player.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I mean you could do what Atlus does and just say, "THIS IS HOW IT IS. IF YOU CAN'T HACK IT, THEN FUCK YOU!!!!!"
author=Shinan
It's usually found between two difficulty settings.
I wish God Hand had something between Normal and Hard. It's hard to get good at some bosses (Mad Midget Five) when you're stuck at level one and the alternative is Hard where you're level DIE
level die is a very appropriate name
author=Sooz
I mean you could do what Atlus does and just say, "THIS IS HOW IT IS. IF YOU CAN'T HACK IT, THEN FUCK YOU!!!!!"
This is extra funny to me, because I started playing Soul Hackers, where if it's too hard you literally can hack it XD
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I think the amount of difficulty that's "just hard enough" is different for every player. Some players are just more skilled than others. You have four options, really, that I see:
1) Design the game for players of a certain skill level. Players too far below that skill level will be frustrated and players too far above it will be bored. You can expect players to get better at the game as they play, so this skill level can slowly increase as the game goes on. This is what 99% of older games did.
2) Add multiple difficulty settings for the player to choose between. This opens the game up to a much wider variety of players, but it vastly increases the time you will spend balancing it. There's a very small subset of players who hate games with multiple difficulty settings because their brains are wired to always take the easiest path, but that path is too easy to be fun to them. But as long as you don't let them change it mid-game, this phenomenon usually doesn't happen to more than about 5% of players.
3) Have some sort of automatic difficulty selection, level scaling, or rubberbanding. This normalizes the difficulty for everyone at the expense of completely defeating the purpose of getting better at the game. This only works if players don't know you're doing it. Once they find out, a lot of them will be furious, many will stop playing, and the ones that keep playing will change the way they play to abuse your scaling system instead of trying to play their best (since trying to play their best is actually counterproductive).
4) Make the game easy, but distract the player from the simplicity by making the game keep changing, with tons of minigames, and new characters with wildly different playstyles, and other things like that. Make it so that almost the entire game is spent learning how to play new parts, which are played differently than anything before, and thus the player will never get bored. Although some players will exhibit mastery of gameplay after 5 battles and others will take 100 battles, no one will exhibit mastery on their very first attempt at something, and so it always feels "challenging" to some degree. This method is very rare because it HUGELY increases development time; you have to create a dozen times as much gameplay as you would with the other methods. Super Mario RPG is a good example of this.
1) Design the game for players of a certain skill level. Players too far below that skill level will be frustrated and players too far above it will be bored. You can expect players to get better at the game as they play, so this skill level can slowly increase as the game goes on. This is what 99% of older games did.
2) Add multiple difficulty settings for the player to choose between. This opens the game up to a much wider variety of players, but it vastly increases the time you will spend balancing it. There's a very small subset of players who hate games with multiple difficulty settings because their brains are wired to always take the easiest path, but that path is too easy to be fun to them. But as long as you don't let them change it mid-game, this phenomenon usually doesn't happen to more than about 5% of players.
3) Have some sort of automatic difficulty selection, level scaling, or rubberbanding. This normalizes the difficulty for everyone at the expense of completely defeating the purpose of getting better at the game. This only works if players don't know you're doing it. Once they find out, a lot of them will be furious, many will stop playing, and the ones that keep playing will change the way they play to abuse your scaling system instead of trying to play their best (since trying to play their best is actually counterproductive).
4) Make the game easy, but distract the player from the simplicity by making the game keep changing, with tons of minigames, and new characters with wildly different playstyles, and other things like that. Make it so that almost the entire game is spent learning how to play new parts, which are played differently than anything before, and thus the player will never get bored. Although some players will exhibit mastery of gameplay after 5 battles and others will take 100 battles, no one will exhibit mastery on their very first attempt at something, and so it always feels "challenging" to some degree. This method is very rare because it HUGELY increases development time; you have to create a dozen times as much gameplay as you would with the other methods. Super Mario RPG is a good example of this.
