How would you define difficulty ?

[the0thMonkey]

I'm not sure if this will be helpful, but my idea of difficulty (for this game) is how realistic it is. IMO, the more realistic the game, from physically having to block blows to the enemy's AI, the more difficult it will be. Take porky for example. He will be much more difficult to defeat than your average villager because he is bigger, stronger, and survives by killing anything that annoys him.

The opposite of this (which I think we have all agreed we dislike) is boosting the stats of enemies with no regard for realism or physical possibility. Often these boosts are not even derived from upgrades in equipment or similar factors that could make sense, they are merely numerical changes to the enemy's performance statistics.

 

[BrecMadak]

Back to defining the world 'difficulty', i'd say, the game should not become easier as you are advanced, if this ever occurs by any means, then we can hardly call scaling working progressively the way it must be. Game should not turn into a gear check as infamous D3 could ever get far anymore in that field. It's you who ought to think and try to come up with alternative strategies against various difficulty spikes, within the very possibilities game would have given you.

I must concur what Cehdburn says as well, but in that circumstance, the world should present us a wider amount of challenging opportunities throughout the game, especially for those who fancy themselves as hardcore player. I mean we should able to experience even some masochistic fights; as long as this could ever be possible, I'm all for only one difficulty level, a world which wouldn't have the other way around.

Oh, and not to be missed that Madoc has plans against mindless rushers, that is GREAT !

=================================================================
Btw, i have doubts SG will have 'easy mode', SG is not a game that will be made for casual mass, if not purely cater to hardcore gamers. Maybe i am not the guy to say but, personally I fear that SG would not suit players whose dreams are made for 'press-to-win' alike games, on the contrary it will be quite irrelevant to that mindset. There are already millions other games out there for the seekers of killing time, blowing off steam etc.

 

[Algea]

BrecMadak well, if it's the case then I'll have to suck it up. Though I don't agree with your opinion about 'easy mode' and 'press-to-win' games and that people who want easy difficulty are 'the seekers of killing time'. For me easy difficulty is the way I can enjoy complexity of this game, including fights because fights will be challenging for me on this difficulty. Not because I'll breeze through the content, but because I'm not good at playing games but I love playing them.

You are entitled to your opinion about one true difficulty of course, but please don't forget that there are many different people in the world who want to be able to enjoy the game just like you. If it's hard or unrealistic to implement this difficulty then it's okay. But to not implement it at all just because a part of the player base thinks that this is some kind of a super-duper hardcore realistic game is a bit unfair.

 

[Psychomorph]

I personally really dislike the ability to select a certain difficulty. It feels so much more meaningful when everyone plays the same game. Couldn't the main storyline be set easy-medium, with additional extremely hard set side-objectives. Or instead of running away from a big monster that attacks you (easy) you'd fight it (hard). I believe players should make their own difficulty.

I know I'm probably alone on this, it's just the way I'm wired.

Excellent view angel! The players choice should define difficulty. Play it easy or play it hard, your choice.

This is also kind of the reason why I am very much supporting well developed stealth mechanics in SG, because this can be a way to play "easy", by just sneaking past enemies and/or assassinate them unaware. However, in certain situations stealth can become the "hard" way, if killing someone may actually be easier (picking them one by one for example) than trying to outmaneuver them (and when making a mistake having them bunched up against you, which may become super challenging).

 

[Zodeak]

Back to defining the world 'difficulty', i'd say, the game should not become easier as you are advanced, if this ever occurs by any means, then we can hardly call scaling working progressively the way it must be. Game should not turn into a gear check as infamous D3 could ever get far anymore in that field. It's you who ought to think and try to come up with alternative strategies against various difficulty spikes, within the very possibilities game would have given you.

I may be wrong, but ALL games get easier as you advance. They may get harder relating to your character's stats, but as you progress as a player of the game, even harder challenges are made easier after even one playthrough. There's nothing that developers can really do to combat (pun intended) this, to my knowledge anyway.

BrecMadak well, if it's the case then I'll have to suck it up. Though I don't agree with your opinion about 'easy mode' and 'press-to-win' games and that people who want easy difficulty are 'the seekers of killing time'. For me easy difficulty is the way I can enjoy complexity of this game, including fights because fights will be challenging for me on this difficulty. Not because I'll breeze through the content, but because I'm not good at playing games but I love playing them.

I think this is a great view! I suppose difficulty, after all, is just a mechanism to allow different people to enjoy the same game. I'd never thought about it like this!

Madoc has plans against mindless rushers, that is GREAT !

This is always welcome

 

[SRJR]

Better AI is definitely our preferred method of increasing difficulty. Hitting, parrying, dodging etc. is all down to physics and AI decisions. We hope that AI at its best can be competitive with a very skilled player.

I don't think you need advanced AI to challenge a player and make them think on their feet. Take chess for example. All of the pieces move in a very specific and predictable way, but when you arrange them on the board in a complex manner, the player has to think on their feet.

Level design is the real key to challenging battles, and I think also the key to satisfying us hardcore players. Even if the challenge is not so high, we appreciate new and complex encounters- like a battle on a narrow bridge with no railings, or across a slippery floor, or on a frozen lake where you can fall through the ice if you stand in place for too long. Maybe a dining hall where the lights go out periodically, and you can trip over tables and chairs. Fighting up a staircase.

In this way you can still have simple, predictable mechanics that still force the player out of their comfort zone. Even if they are not very challenging, if you keep the variety coming (don't just use it once like a gimmick) players will appreciate it, and remember the unique experience.

Edit: Also, we had some good discussion here, before we were directed back to this thread.
http://www.baremettle.com/sg/forums/index.php?threads/in-regards-to-game-difficulty.293/

 

[Tom]

Better AI is definitely our preferred method of increasing difficulty. Hitting, parrying, dodging etc. is all down to physics and AI decisions. We hope that AI at its best can be competitive with a very skilled player. There isn't much for AI to do yet but already they can use some pretty clever tactics. Also, for example, if you try to run past an NPC they will actually aim and time a blow so that it knocks you off your feet as you run past. Our method for designing AI is often to observe Kieran fighting and teaching AI the same tactics he uses, all AI is limited to the same inputs as a player character and basically we just put an AI player in control.

If we do introduce some kind of difficulty scaling it will definitely be along the lines of better AI, better equipment, harder / more opponents etc. What Chedburn says is however pretty much exactly what we would prefer too.

Sounds great! My only concern would be repetitiveness, or God forbid... tedious fights that take forever! How can you guys ensure that that doesn't happen? By the sound of it making it a skill-based system is already on the right track

 

[the0thMonkey]

I don't think you need advanced AI to challenge a player and make them think on their feet. Take chess for example. All of the pieces move in a very specific and predictable way, but when you arrange them on the board in a complex manner, the player has to think on their feet.

I disagree with this. The mechanics of chess are simple and well defined as you say, but it is your opponents intelligence that challenges you. The pieces are in their positions because the opponent moved them there. World design can undoubtedly contribute to difficulty and a better overall experience, but in terms of difficulty, better AI is definitely one way to do it.

I don't want to overuse the chess example, but the "level" for chess is always the exact same - an 8 by 8 grid. If level design was all that mattered, chess would be very boring and would not be one of the most famous games in the world.

 

[SRJR]

I disagree with this. The mechanics of chess are simple and well defined as you say, but it is your opponents intelligence that challenges you. The pieces are in their positions because the opponent moved them there. World design can undoubtedly contribute to difficulty and a better overall experience, but in terms of difficulty, better AI is definitely one way to do it.

I don't want to overuse the chess example, but the "level" for chess is always the exact same - an 8 by 8 grid. If level design was all that mattered, chess would be very boring and would not be one of the most famous games in the world.

I'm not trying to say that level design is all that matters, I'm saying you don't have to make complicated and unpredictable AI to surprise the player and provide unique challenges.

I would argue that the chess "level" isn't the grid, it's the positioning of available pieces- if your opponent's pieces were all bishops, you would move differently. Enemy selection, quantity and placement is as much the "level" as the map (terrain) is.

That's not to speak little of the map's role. Using the same chess example, imagine if you blocked off certain squares on the grid. The game would change again. Your strategy would adjust to use those squares to your advantage.

Definitely over-used the chess example, but I think it's a great way to talk about how level design can change a game, without actually modifying the mechanics or AI.

Of course, if you WANT complicated AI, that's totally fine- it's just a matter of taste. I prefer unique levels for making something more or less challenging.

 

[Zodeak]

I'm not sure if the chess analogy is really relevant? Chess isn't a computer game. Yes, you can use the fact that you play against a computer AI whilst playing chess to intuit that better AI makes a game more challenging but that's really the only point to draw from it, and this is common sense...

World design doesn't even come into the game of chess. In fact, if it did you would have to increase the size of the grid... That's almost the whole point of chess, a test of pure logic without any hinderances: intelligence and knowledge are the only two aspects of chess to my knowledge.

 

[the0thMonkey]

@SRJR

I still don't really agree with you (about the chess analogy anyway), but that is besides the point.

Unique, interesting, and challenging level design are all good things, as is intelligent AI. I think BME should use all the tools at their disposal (AI, levels, mechanics) to make SG as interesting, fun, and challenging as possible.

 

[BrecMadak]

Another long break has taken its course, but let's brisk up this thread a little...
Devs could take forward things rather than just giving some certain sets of behaviours to npcs (not saying that they don't have ideas yet, just brainstorming), cause once these are memorized then we automatically left back using how we were used to deal with eventually. But probably this won't be an issue at all since SG is built on on a physics based game anyway.

A non-challenging game is a dead game in my book regardless how great it is. I have stopped playing some games exclusively cause of this inadequacy, if the game does not force me to advance new strategies throughout the game then i dramatically start to loose my interest once i had. And then i never want to go back and try finishing it again.

What i think devs should be very interested especially on improving AI continuously more than anything on their road, speaking for future if anything; devoloping new AI's should never be suspended for whatever the reason behind it ever be. Once one has finished with discovering things in game, it is AI what is left between game and the player, speaking mechanical wise here. Therefore it could turn out to be a bad decision to give long breaks improving AI in general.

SG could turn out to be a gold when finished, and not only a dream, especially for those that have been already starving for challenging games for the past ten years or so. So this is my reason for my early concerns and early call to devs on this matter.

The decision is on the hands of devs, it is them that will decide for their player base whom they will cater for. Hope devs won't be exposed to being left in the middle of this decision, it would be the worst thing for both sides certainly.

As a side note, have i said already why i stopped playing Path of Exile furthermore ? (as an alpha member) Nothing but this was the biggest reason.

 

[TigerBunnyHeart]

I was wondering about that as well, because you don't want to be very easy..NOT at all and Plus if we are actually traped into the maze then (hahahaaaa...) <think about it..>

 

[Komuflage]

Level design is the real key to challenging battles, and I think also the key to satisfying us hardcore players. Even if the challenge is not so high, we appreciate new and complex encounters- like a battle on a narrow bridge with no railings, or across a slippery floor, or on a frozen lake where you can fall through the ice if you stand in place for too long. Maybe a dining hall where the lights go out periodically, and you can trip over tables and chairs. Fighting up a staircase.

In this way you can still have simple, predictable mechanics that still force the player out of their comfort zone. Even if they are not very challenging, if you keep the variety coming (don't just use it once like a gimmick) players will appreciate it, and remember the unique experience.

Edit: Also, we had some good discussion here, before we were directed back to this thread.
http://www.baremettle.com/sg/forums/index.php?threads/in-regards-to-game-difficulty.293/

This! Thank you. Even though I agree with Brecmadak about the AI, level design is so important.
I'm so bored of every boss fight in recent games I've played just being square platforms with different backgrounds, fighting the same AI but represented in a different model and texture.

It doesn't matter if the AI gets so smart it can "predict" my every move, making it theoretically impossible to defeat, if all I'm ever going to do is just fight, and use reflexes and timing, then at one point I will "learn" the game, and be able to beat it without really thinking.

Make the environment a part of the combat, force me to focus on blocking, parrying and counter attacking, but at the same time try to scout the area for anything I can use to my advantage. Maybe there is a huge boulder on a cliff a few meters above, which I can make come rolling down with a good throw of an explosive, but in order to throw the explosive up there, I need a gap in the current fight.

Now I need to focus on blocking, parrying and try to get my foe to stumble, (Maybe with a carefully placed shield bash when my opponent drop his guard?) and during that second I get while my foe tries to regain balance (if I now manage to make him stumble that is) I can take out my explosive, throw it up toward the boulder, and with enough luck/skill, the boulder will come rolling down, crushing my opponent.

That, for me, is difficulty.

 

[TigerBunnyHeart]

This! Thank you. Even though I agree with Brecmadak about the AI, level design is so important.
I'm so bored of every boss fight in recent games I've played just being square platforms with different backgrounds, fighting the same AI but represented in a different model and texture.

It doesn't matter if the AI gets so smart it can "predict" my every move, making it theoretically impossible to defeat, if all I'm ever going to do is just fight, and use reflexes and timing, then at one point I will "learn" the game, and be able to beat it without really thinking.

Make the environment a part of the combat, force me to focus on blocking, parrying and counter attacking, but at the same time try to scout the area for anything I can use to my advantage. Maybe there is a huge boulder on a cliff a few meters above, which I can make come rolling down with a good throw of an explosive, but in order to throw the explosive up there, I need a gap in the current fight.

Now I need to focus on blocking, parrying and try to get my foe to stumble, (Maybe with a carefully placed shield bash when my opponent drop his guard?) and during that second I get while my foe tries to regain balance (if I now manage to make him stumble that is) I can take out my explosive, throw it up toward the boulder, and with enough luck/skill, the boulder will come rolling down, crushing my opponent.

That, for me, is difficulty.

People Needs to learned sometimes .. In the games soo they can watch out what is coming toward them in real life.

 

[Tony]

I can take out my explosive, throw it up toward the boulder, and with enough luck/skill, the boulder will come rolling down, crushing my opponent.

That, for me, is difficulty.

I agree that attempting to do this in combat would be quite difficult. Almost too difficult If I had some explosives and a choice between throwing them at an object and hoping I timed it just perfectly to knock this object onto my opponent, or simply throwing the explosive at my opponent... I'm going to go with the second option every time

However, I see where you were going with this idea. I, too, would like to be able to use the environment to my advantage in combat. Just hopefully in ways that don't play out quite so much like an episode in a cartoon

 

[MichaelStuart]

I define difficulty be how much I'm forced to think.