Goldilocks Gaming, the difficulty of difficulty

[IncendiaryDevice]

Do you always play on the 'hardest' difficulty setting a game developer provides for their game?

Do you tend to prefer the 'easy' difficulty?

Or are you (*looks left, looks right, speaks in hushed tones*) a Normie?

and, in a similar vein:

Do you only tend to like games where you're permanently challenged to your limits?

Do you prefer games that don't challenge you at all but provide general 'fun'?

Or do you prefer games that gradually elevate difficulty as the game progresses, with lots of comfort zones to help regain your motivation for another challenge?


The current 'news' in gaming is the trend toward pressuring gaming devs to include easier and easier easy settings while the natural equal and opposite reaction to this is for people to backlash popularity towards games that market themselves as "it's so hard, man, like, you're a real man if you can do that game, fuck the pussys, play me". Now, I dunno about you, but I'm a goldilocks gamer, and I'll explain why:

I've tried games that have 'easy' features. Games where you can't even turn off the hints. Games where you experience zero mental challenges and then suddenly find yourself at the end-game credits. [Admittedly, that last example was an extremely short game]. And what I find is that if I don't feel challenged at all then I quit. If a game starts off quite challenging but then descends into easy mode later in the game then it will depend on how much game is left, the desire for completion suddenly outweighing the desire to quit. But, for me, too easy=quit most of the time.

I've also tried games that I've found to be too hard. Games where the only hints are found on google. Games where the exhilaration of completing one small thing results in a problem twice as mind-bending not 1 minute later. And what I find is that after my third or fourth visit to google I start to completely lose any interest in continuing. After all, what's the point of copy-pasting a walkthrough onto your screen? That doesn't feel like gaming at all. I sometimes imagine that I'll do it 'properly' next time and turn the game off, think about the problem for an hour or two and then start it again, all the way through the game, but it never works like that, I don't game with the patience of someone planning to rob a bank in a hollywood movie, I game with a desire to be perpetually entertained, viscerally.

So what I found was that, for most games where there is a difficulty option, I naturally and routinely click 'normal' with virtually zero variation and the games I like the most are the traditional gaming format of having gradually elevating difficulty. I am a Goldilocks Gamer.

Traditionally, games didn't have difficulty settings. They had the 'start game' button and that was it. Traditionally, all games were designed for Goldilocks Gamers. And the game itself was either too hard or too easy or just right, and the art of game design was about getting this balance just right.

For me, and possibly anyone else who games similarly, the current wars about difficulty settings are utterly absurd and don't help at all with encouraging devs to produce 'better' games. For folks like me, any difficulty slider is a decline which distracts devs from their core duty of making a damn fine game.

I say: devs should just make their damn game and let people play or quit by their own standards.

Do you think 'hard' difficulty settings are just as retarded as 'easy' settings?

Or do you think Goldilocks Gamers are just as bad as 'easy' gamers?

 

[Deflowerer]

I've also tried games that I've found to be too hard. Games where the only hints are found on google.

Care to give examples as to what these games are?

 

[Zenith]

Are you expecting anyone to read this past 2-3 lines?

Basic answer is: I wouldn't trust most devs wrt balance and naming difficulty lvls.

Aside from having no difficulty choice at all, best possible scenario is when it directly says "this is the difficulty the game was designed and tested for, easier difficulty is training wheels", as in the case of Invisible Inc and some others.

Other than that, depends on the genre specifics. I'd play a classic FPS on hardest, but doing the same in a regen-health FPS often means devs just cranked up the damage %% without any testing. If I'm unfamiliar with developer's games, I'd play an RPG or a strategy on normal first. Then - depends, sometimes self-imposed handicaps (e.g. no cans in Geneforges) are preferrable to increasing the difficulty. I try to ghost stealth games on first try. If it's present, setting puzzle difficulty (Shock 1/Silent Hill 2) on anything other than max would make me feel like I haven't really experienced the game.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I've also tried games that I've found to be too hard. Games where the only hints are found on google.

Care to give examples as to what these games are?

Usually point and click adventure games or similar puzzle-style point and click stuff. I don't know how many I've tried over the years, but that seems to be the hardest genre to find the goldilocks perfection, for a whole manner of reasons. My Goldilocks of this type would probably be Broken Sword. The adventure puzzle genre is one of the biggest nightmares for any developer, trying to provide new challenges to past players while still being playable by new players. I could list adventure/puzzle games by the dozen if I could remember them all, used to get them three for a tenner and never kept any of them, and they'd cover every classification I've made just in that one genre. But most genres are effected by this in different degrees.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Are you expecting anyone to read this past 2-3 lines?

?

 

[Mark Richard]

I prefer to experience a game in the manner the developer intended (when applicable) and want the baseline difficulty to be labelled as such. All too often I've found myself having to get that information from the players themselves.

 

[mondblut]

Whatever gives the most XP for the least effort.

And, to repeat myself, if an RPG challenges me, I am playing it wrong.

 

[Plisken]

Depends entirely on the game and the design of the difficulty.

As long as it's fair, that's more important to me than how difficult the game is. Punish me for my mistakes but don't introduce artificial difficulty just to be a pain in the ass. If it has to involve save scumming to have a realistic chance of beating a given situation, thats usually where I draw the line.

Some games the addition of a difficulty selection is just fucking stupid, and the problem is as mark richard described above. STALKER for example - there is only one difficulty worth playing on and that's Master - not because of any elitist notions about the challenge of the game, but simply because thats how the game is balanced and designed to be played, and lower difficulties actually make the game less rational. But if you were not aware from the community before hand, you wouldn't know this and just assume the Master difficulty is a bunch of aimbot AI, which is not the case.

 

[asfasdf]

Who cares about difficulty, the fun is in trying to break the system.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

I generally start on whatever the next one up from normal is (usually hard ofc but sometimes it's different) then adjust from there

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Who cares about difficulty, the fun is in trying to break the system.

Why would you bother breaking a game on easy difficulty or if the game was already easy? On what difficulty do you usually break the game on? You don't seem to understand what's being talked about here...

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Some games... there is only one difficulty worth playing on and that's Master - not because of any elitist notions about the challenge of the game, but simply because thats how the game is balanced and designed to be played, and lower difficulties actually make the game less rational.

Yes, I had a case of this earlier this year when playing Port Royale. That game had only one difficulty slider and it wasn't for the whole game but just for the sea battles in the game, a choice of either simple, moderate and difficult. I chose difficult and it felt like easy to normal, so I've no idea what the other two are like as I never tried them, as you say, not because of elitism but just because that seemed to be what 'normal' was in that game.

 

[wyes gull]

Not only am I not sure if designers generally do difficulty right, I wonder whether or not programmers should even bother with difficulty levels at all.

Streets of Rage 2 is one of the games I've played the most and I used to think it did difficulty right. It had 6 difficulty levels (Very Easy>Easy>Normal>Hard>Hardest>Mania) where the variance was is 1) enemy number; 2) enemy aggression; 3) enemy health; 4) enemy speed. The game differed in that on lower levels, you were chasing the enemies only to pummel them with barely any response and using specials (which drain HP) for flash, whereas on higher levels you are running from enemies, trying to avoid being cornered or flanked, using specials to avoid worse damage and generally playing a very dangerous game of hitbox/reflex lunging. They're completely different experiences. Then again both extreme levels (which, fair enough, are hidden behind a cheat code) essentially break the game. Arguably, Easy and Hardest already bend it.

Put yourself in the developer's shoes. How do you want your players to play the game? Do you want your players to learn that they should avoid taking damage? Then SoR2's Easy is not doing a good enough job of teaching it. Do you want your players to sustain damage on purpose because it is the preferred alternative in a game that's about the complete opposite? Then Hardest isn't doing a good job either. And who do you want to drop after one level and who do you want to make it all the way through to the end? If the answers are "IDC" and "Nobody and everyone", please stop making games. Assuming they're not, if your game is predicated in challenging players (because why bother making a game otherwise?), you're going to have to compromise and figure out your game's curve, and this involves sacrifice. Not everyone is going to make it all the way through. Hell, most shouldn't. Generally speaking, first few levels should be finished by players not well aware of the mechanics, halfway point should only be finished by players with a solid control over the fundamentals and the last few levels should be a test of the player's skill as well as his strategics. It shouldn't be enough that the player finally figured out the rhythm for the combo, that should be second nature by this point in the game; he should be challenged on when to stop the combo, when to finish it with a jump kick or a special instead and even whether or not to use it at all. This difficulty curve drawing thing is hard- and it creates casualties (that are unacceptable by modern day mainstream gaming standards). But it -should- provide the player with the exact experience the developer intended. Adding difficulty levels doesn't only move the curve up or down, it deforms it as I attempted to demonstrate with the SoR example.

I mean, one could always do a noncommittal "yeah it depends on the game" and it'd ring true often enough but I reckon the way I see, if I make a game, I want to have a firm handle on what I'm having the player do. Not doing so has its place (plenty of games offer sandbox approaches successfully) but if you're making a reasonably tight experience I would argue that you'd be better to reward the skilled and cunning than everyone in their own fashion otherwise, how strong is your vision to begin with? Or maybe I'm being unreasonably elitist. Meh.

 

[T. Reich]

For older/monocled games, if a game has difficulty settings, my first playthrough will likely be on Normal, because this is usually the difficulty the devs balance the game around.
If the game turns out to be good enough to warrant future repeat playthroughs, I'm likely to try on Hard, unless the devs' notion of "hard" is HP bloat or similar retardation.
For most modern games, I'll probably pick Hard from the get-go, because the current "Normal" is the past's "Easy".

 

[Grauken]

Yeah, in old times I could go with normal, which often was quite challenging already, whereupon the current normal in games is toddler-difficulty and easy is game journo mode. That said, I would actually prefer to not have different difficulty modes, as I want to play the game as intended by the developers, and I find it annoying to second-guess for which difficulty they actually designed for. People who can't deal with that have always the option to cheat, but even cheating is too complicated for some people these days.

As for the OPs question, I like games that kill me when I do something obviously stupid (like not keeping attention in action games for example), but I'm not a fan of endless trash mobs with HP bloat. Dynamic situations where different tactics lead to decidedly different outcomes, with the occasional party/player kill thrown in for randomness to show that the universe has bite. Games that throw enemies at me that not only look different, but actually have different tactics and abilities as well that force me to change my approach and with no universal cheap attack approach.

Something I despise is when a game is only hard in the beginning, but by mid- and especially end-game my party is so overpowered that it roflestomps almost everything including the final boss. Probably why I like Wizardry games, as they remain challenging if you don't grind like a maniac.

 

[RuySan]

I usual go with the default difficulty, but if i'm playing a game from some AAA developer (like The Witcher 3), i go straight to harder difficulties because there's a high chance the default is too easy.

 

[Jimmious]

I never go immediately to the hardest difficulty and also never to the easiest. Then it depends on the amount of options.
On the typical easy-normal-harder-super hard scale, I go with the "harder" one if it's a game type that I'm good at and with the "normal" if it's something I suck at (like an FPS or sth)

 

[Falksi]

Most games I play on Normal for the first playthrough, then bump up it up to Hard or Hardest depending on how I found the first run if it's good enough for a second playthrough.

That's assuming the difficulty is handled well. Whereas if it's just things such as HP bloat I don't bother.

Similar to RuySan though, if Normal is AAA-easy like TW3, I'll knock the difficulty levels up until it's fun straight from the off. TW3 was a perfect example of a game that I cranked up to Death March within a few hours, because there was just no challenge on Normal.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I usual go with the default difficulty, but if i'm playing a game from some AAA developer (like The Witcher 3), i go straight to harder difficulties because there's a high chance the default is too easy.

I think the first time I noticed this consciously was with an RPG when NWN came out.

If you look at the instructions from (vanilla) Icewind Dale regarding its difficulty setting, it's pretty much what you would once upon a time have expected:

This slider controls the difficulty level to be used in combat. The middle setting is true AD&D. IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME USING THE TRUE AD&D RULES, THEN DON'T TOUCH THIS SLIDER. If you move the slider to an easier setting, then you will receive proportionately less experience points. The reverse does not apply when you use a harder setting.

And the slider has 5 notches, two below core rules and two after.

It's quite emphatic about what you should be playing on if you want to play some D&D, the capitals are telling you what the game is balanced around. The lack of detail about what other settings actually do rightly diminishes their importance and without using the word normal you know what normal is. The game automatically starts you on the ideal default for a goldilocks gamer.

Now compare that to NWN which came out but a couple of years later:

http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Difficulty_setting

While there is more detail available to the player as to what each difficulty setting does, it doesn't really tell you what difficulty the game was designed around. It's giving equal billing to all the settings. But, most importantly, core rules is now the 4th of the 5 options. Normal is no longer core rules. The game automatically starts you off on an 'easy' mode and calls it normal.

With NWN I suspect it has to do with their inability to prevent companions from being suicidal and under core rules you'd have to spend the whole game resuscitating them at great cost (the expansions flood you with resurrection staffs instead). So it was likely they did actually design the game around non-core rules and design it round the easier setting. But this kind-of started a trend by assisting in setting a bad precedent, in that normal, with regards to RPGs, no longer meant 'normal' and it was ok to set non-normal settings as 'normal'.

And this, in my opinion, is why difficulty sliders and the concept of normal are important, because normal is what a game is usually primarily designed around. Or, should be. By making normal too easy you create a circular loop of people designing games to be too easy, and thereby fuelling this elitism problem by forcing people to play 'hard' settings just to get a normal experience. By playing 'hard' instead of 'normal' as your default, you automatically sound 'elite', even when you're not trying to be.

 

[Alienman]

Usually check what the difficulty modes actually mean before starting. If it's only bloat I pass. But in the case of Dragon Age: Origins normal didn't have friendly fire and that felt just weird. Hard had that.

 

[mondblut]

this elitism problem

How is this a problem?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

this elitism problem

How is this a problem?

Elitists are so boring they drain the soul from anything they touch. Like watching python's Yorkshireman sketch on a continual loop.

 

[Mark Richard]

I usual go with the default difficulty, but if i'm playing a game from some AAA developer (like The Witcher 3), i go straight to harder difficulties because there's a high chance the default is too easy.

I think the first time I noticed this consciously was with an RPG when NWN came out.

If you look at the instructions from (vanilla) Icewind Dale regarding its difficulty setting, it's pretty much what you would once upon a time have expected:

This slider controls the difficulty level to be used in combat. The middle setting is true AD&D. IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME USING THE TRUE AD&D RULES, THEN DON'T TOUCH THIS SLIDER. If you move the slider to an easier setting, then you will receive proportionately less experience points. The reverse does not apply when you use a harder setting.

And the slider has 5 notches, two below core rules and two after.

It's quite emphatic about what you should be playing on if you want to play some D&D, the capitals are telling you what the game is balanced around. The lack of detail about what other settings actually do rightly diminishes their importance and without using the word normal you know what normal is. The game automatically starts you on the ideal default for a goldilocks gamer.

Now compare that to NWN which came out but a couple of years later:

http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Difficulty_setting

While there is more detail available to the player as to what each difficulty setting does, it doesn't really tell you what difficulty the game was designed around. It's giving equal billing to all the settings. But, most importantly, core rules is now the 4th of the 5 options. Normal is no longer core rules. The game automatically starts you off on an 'easy' mode and calls it normal.

I think it's largely to avoid the risk of discouraging players on lower difficulty settings, because nobody likes to be told they're playing at the kiddie table. If the game definitively states the ideal difficulty which it's designed around, the implication is that those on lower difficulties aren't good enough to play the real game. That's why normal is easy and hard is normal - the games industry has adopted vanity sizing. Avoiding hurt feelings is more important than actually giving players the information they need to identify the difficulty for them. I had to find out about the intended difficulty of XCOM: Enemy Unknown from the designer's fucking Twitter account.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I think it's largely to avoid the risk of discouraging players on lower difficulty settings, because nobody likes to be told they're playing at the kiddie table.

I thought about this thread when this happened in BG:

Its kinda ironic how Bioware went from a company that was bold enough to include this in their game to the company renown for the Awesome Button.