The decrease of Videogame difficulty

[ScarletCyro]

Over the years, Videogames have been getting easier, why is this the case? In my opinion it's due to videogames becoming more mainstream. But also because there is more power, meaning that they don't need to make games hard to give them adequate playtime. Do you all think that this is beneficial to Gaming as a whole or does it take away part of the spirit of the culture? Of course there is exceptions to this rule, but it definitely seems like the industry is heading towards making games accessible to everyone. I think it's bad for gaming, because the point of gaming is to have that interactive sense of reward and satisfaction from playing a game and figuring out a puzzle, bit making the game easier takes away that element of play hugely, it could also play a role in the revival of retro gaming because people are looking for a challenging experience that more modern games aren't able to give them. But i wonder what you all think, feel free to reply.

[SasaMisa]

In a word, "commercialisation". Gaming has sadly become the same as every other form of art nowadays, in that it has largely devolved to mediocrity in order to appeal to as many 'normies' as possible and thus, make as much money as possible. If you've read anything by Aldous Huxley, you'll know why this ultimately a very bad thing at the end of the day. (-_-)

Me personally, I'm old enough to remember when the coin-ops were made deliberately difficult so that 90% of players would be off the machine in minutes. This trend continued well into the 8-bit console/computer era, but had largely been abandoned by the time the 16-bit consoles came along. Indeed, both me and my brother noticed the massive disparity between say, games on the Amiga versus games on the Mega Drive, with the latter costing absolutely insane amounts of money to buy, yet the sort of thing we would complete on our first go. (*_*)

At any rate, there's nothing wrong with a game being easy, although as a lifelong gamer (I've been into this stuff for something like 45 years now), I do prefer a challenge myself. Difficulty levels would seem to be the answer to this issue, but so few companies bother with that now, which is shame. (T_T)

Edited July 26, 2022 by SasaMisa
Word substitution.

[buskerdog]

I'd like to make some counter-arguments, if I may. Game design is a keen interest of mine; although I don't consider myself an authority on the matter, I do consider myself to have worthwhile knowledge.

7 hours ago, ScarletPyro said:

it definitely seems like the industry is heading towards making games accessible to everyone. I think it's bad for gaming, because the point of gaming is to have that interactive sense of reward and satisfaction from playing a game and figuring out a puzzle, bit making the game easier takes away that element of play hugely

I enjoy video games that are hard. Challenges are fun. But hard video games are not for everyone, and quite frankly, they're not meant to be for everyone. Video games are ultimately a form of media, like books and music, and their main purpose is to entertain. What sets games apart is their interactivity - and interacting with things can be fun even when it's not hard. Also like books and music, video games are a form of art, and all art is subjective. Saying that difficult games are the only ones worth anyone's time is like saying that only 1 genre of music is "real" music, or that people should only read 1 genre of fiction. Different kinds of games are made to appeal to different people in different ways, there is no 1 game that will make everyone happy. Enjoy what you enjoy and let other like what they like, recognise what are the elements of the game that make it fun, if not its difficulty.

8 hours ago, ScarletPyro said:

it definitely seems like the industry is heading towards making games accessible to everyone.

I get that what you're trying to criticise here is game difficulty, but you should be more careful with your words, because you make it sound like you are criticising game accessibility, and that is a huge asshole move. Everyone deserves to be able to enjoy a game, and accessibility options are an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PART OF THAT. Consider people who are colourblind, hard of hearing, partially paralysed, or even blind. Game developers, especially those from big companies with a big budget, should responsible for adding settings such as adjustable colour, sound subtitles, key remapping, descriptive audio, and yes - even the option to just make something easier - to address these users. Western developers have a much better track records of doing this than Japan. Sometimes it might not always be that simple - for example, how far can you take accessibility options in a game designed for competitive play? - other times, adding certain options requires technologies that are simply out of the developer's scope. However, I stand by my point that accessibility is important, and something that bigger developers should be acknowledging if they aren't already.

3 hours ago, SasaMisa said:

In a word, "commercialisation". Gaming has sadly become the same as every other form of art nowadays, in that it has largely devolved to mediocrity in order to appeal to as many 'normies' as possible and thus, make as much money as possible.

Yes and no. Yes, commercialisation has lead to mediocrity in the name of mass appeal. And yes, making a game that earns a lot of money though mass appeal generally means making a game not very difficult - after all, investors would never ever want to anything that risks an unhappy customer. But the "No" is that I don't think the correlation to difficulty is very strong. Games made purely for mass appeal (usually) aren't very hard, but I don't really think that's effecting all the other developers around. I'd say that improvements in processing power and a shift in design philosophy are better explanations.

4 hours ago, SasaMisa said:

Difficulty levels would seem to be the answer to this issue, but so few companies bother with that now, which is shame.

Difficulty levels are NOT the answer to this issue. What a difficulty setting actually means is different for every game, so nobody can understand it. And furthermore, you're putting the responsibility on the player to choose what will be the most fun when chances are they don't know. It can even be damaging to the experience the developer is trying to create - plotting a difficulty curve, for example, is going to be a complicated mess if not all your players are even using the same difficulty. Ultimately, it is an extremely difficult question to answer. In my opinion, the best approach for players is to simply know what games will offer them the experience they want - and for developers, to make a game that a specific audience of players will love, rather than a game that a broad group of people will just like.

 

9 hours ago, ScarletPyro said:

it could also play a role in the revival of retro gaming because people are looking for a challenging experience that more modern games aren't able to give them. But i wonder what you all think, feel free to reply.

Well I'd say there's already been a bit of a revival going on, just look at the success of Elden Ring and other FromSoftware games.

[ScarletCyro]

I do understand what you mean buskerdog (assuming that you want to be called that) and yes, there has been a bit of revival in challenging Videogame experiences, at the end of the day i suppose that all people should be able to experience Videogames, because all of us love thep and we want to see them succeed. It's important to keep in mind that we are a tiny tiny fraction of gamers, the ones who actively seek out challenges. But that isn't for everyone, but i do think there is a discussion to be had here.  And yeah i should be more careful in my words so I look like a huge asshole, im not trying to be and I didn't meant to come off that way. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by ScarletPyro

[ScarletCyro]

Also, final thought. The fact that some modern games are getting more challenging is a double edged sword, accessibility is important to me as well. But im happy that some modern games are helping to let a Videogame for everyone be enjoyed. Everyone is different, abd the fact that there's modern games accommodating for people that want that experience, it's great, and these games should also have accessibility options like you said for people with paralysis, hard hearing, ect, Microsoft made that accessibility controller thing, and that's a great move. because it doesn't take away from any players experience. People who need the accessibility options have the option is great, and the fact that people who don't can use the controller that works for them. It's a good middle ground, and that middle ground should also exist in the software, not just the hardware. Also i really don't want to come off as an asshole, so if i do i apologize :)

Edited July 26, 2022 by ScarletPyro
Fixing typos

[buskerdog]

I perfectly get you @ScarletPyro, no intention to be condescending on my part. Just wanted to make sure confusion was avoided - and it happened to segue nicely into a little rant about accessibility : )

I like discussion and I'm open to hearing everyone's point of view. After all, I'm not the expert (although I admit that sometimes I like to think I am).

For example I was very interested to hear @SasaMisa's view on 8 bit and 16 bit era games, because personally I pretty much hate 8-bit games but I love games from the 16-bit era.

Edited July 26, 2022 by buskerdog

[ScarletCyro]

@buskerdog Thank you for the feedback on what i have said, also very nice segue into a accessibility rant. And i understand you didn't mean to be condensending :)

and yes, i got the message loud and clear! I think that the true way to make everyone happy is that the popular games stay the way they are, and more obscure and independent games have the ability to keep the challenge of earlier games 

[ScarletCyro]

10 minutes ago, buskerdog said:

I perfectly get you @ScarletPyro, no intention to be condescending on my part. Just wanted to make sure confusion was avoided - and it happened to segue nicely into a little rant about accessibility : )

I like discussion and I'm open to hearing everyone's point of view. After all, I'm not the expert (although I admit that sometimes I like to think I am).

For example I was very interested to hear @SasaMisa's view on 8 bit and 16 bit era games, because personally I hate pretty much hate 8-bit games but I love games from the 16-bit era.

I am also into 16 bit games, especially chrono trigger on SNES, fantastic game, i like some 8-bit games too, but not as many. And I like to think that this has been a really productive discussion that has been good for all parties. And im really happy that you think so as well ♡

[Tenkko]

I know this is probably not what you're talking about, but a lot of games allow for a sort of "dynamic difficulty" by letting you play in certain ways, usually by limiting your options or ignoring mechanics. Idk you could avoid using certain equipment in an rpg, or choose to not bomb in touhou (which already has a difficulty setting on top). On a larger scale you have more specialized runs that usually require you learn the game in a different way but that's probably another story.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Tenkko

[ScarletCyro]

@Tenkkolike a Pokémon nuzlocke for example? It really limits certain playstyles though, but i see your point and that is a way to have challenging games. But i would rather it was challenging out the box, or out-of-zip-file, rather than me having to limit my playstyle 

[Tenkko]

I'd say nuzlockes fall on the challenge run side of things, I'm talking more little decisions here and there that can make the game a bit more difficult. Like if we're keeping to pokemon uhh idk, I like to avoid using items in battle or using legendaries, the kinda stuff that isn't really intrusive. Think RPGs in particular give a lot of freedom with this but yeah most times it means you're locking yourself out of some content anyways. Just wanted to point it out.

[ScarletCyro]

9 minutes ago, Tenkko said:

I'd say nuzlockes fall on the challenge run side of things, I'm talking more little decisions here and there that can make the game a bit more difficult. Like if we're keeping to pokemon uhh idk, I like to avoid using items in battle or using legendaries, the kinda stuff that isn't really intrusive. Think RPGs in particular give a lot of freedom with this but yeah most times it means you're locking yourself out of some content anyways. Just wanted to point it out.

Ohhh, i see, that does make sense, it does mean locking yourself out of content alot of the time. Which sucks but yk, you gotta do what you gotta do for a challenge sometimes, but those small decisions here and there definitely help

 

[SasaMisa]

I'd go along with what Tenkko says, especially with the kind of games that top my list. Take Dungeon Master & Captive on the Amiga for example, by far my two favourite games of all time: being dungeon crawlers, you can go at your own pace, pretty much, making either game as hard or easy as you wish it to be. I used to be a terrible level grinder back in the day, but nowadays, I prefer to rush in where angels fear to tread and all that, and make them more of a challenge in the process by deliberately starving myself of vital party resources. (^_^)

Don't entirely agree with buskerdog on difficulty levels either way, as they can provide a load of replay value. I mean, as long as I knew Hard & Lunatic difficulty still existed in Wandering Souls, I couldn't put it down, and it was same with Touhou Hack and Slash, in that it wasn't done until the Cirno Farm had finally been thoroughly cleared out on Extra difficulty. (=^_^=)

Oh, and I would add that accessibility is a good thing, but not at the expense of stability. Nothing turns me off a game quicker than one that keeps glitching or crashing for no bloody reason. There's no damn excuse for it since all the games I've mentioned thus far rarely if ever went over. In fact, during my manic year-long playthrough of Captive, where I was playing it 12-16 hours a day, it never crashed once. (^_~)

Edited July 26, 2022 by SasaMisa
Adding some text.

[buskerdog]

4 hours ago, Tenkko said:

I know this is probably not what you're talking about, but a lot of games allow for a sort of "dynamic difficulty" by letting you play in certain ways, usually by limiting your options or ignoring mechanics. Idk you could avoid using certain equipment in an rpg, or choose to not bomb in touhou (which already has a difficulty setting on top). On a larger scale you have more specialized runs that usually require you learn the game in a different way but that's probably another story.

^ Stuff like this actually being baked into the game is a really good approach to difficulty. Like, take any game that has a "true ending" for example.

[Tenkko]

35 minutes ago, buskerdog said:

Like, take any game that has a "true ending" for example.

Was gonna say locking story content behind certain rules is probably the most extreme case, but thinking about it it's also a really good incentive to get someone to play through it.

[ScarletCyro]

42 minutes ago, Tenkko said:

Was gonna say locking story content behind certain rules is probably the most extreme case, but thinking about it it's also a really good incentive to get someone to play through it.

I think that's a good thing, but locking away an ending behind it isn't the right way to go about it. Take celeste for instance, some rewards requiring you to do a chamber in a more challenging way, but they still allow the normal ending to be accessed with or without doing it

[ScarletCyro]

3 hours ago, SasaMisa said:

I'd go along with what Tenkko says, especially with the kind of games that top my list. Take Dungeon Master & Captive on the Amiga for example, by far my two favourite games of all time: being dungeon crawlers, you can go at your own pace, pretty much, making either game as hard or easy as you wish it to be. I used to be a terrible level grinder back in the day, but nowadays, I prefer to rush in where angels fear to tread and all that, and make them more of a challenge in the process by deliberately starving myself of vital party resources. (^_^)

Don't entirely agree with buskerdog on difficulty levels either way, as they can provide a load of replay value. I mean, as long as I knew Hard & Lunatic difficulty still existed in Wandering Souls, I couldn't put it down, and it was same with Touhou Hack and Slash, in that it wasn't done until the Cirno Farm had finally been thoroughly cleared out on Extra difficulty. (=^_^=)

Oh, and I would add that accessibility is a good thing, but not at the expense of stability. Nothing turns me off a game quicker than one that keeps glitching or crashing for no bloody reason. There's no damn excuse for it since all the games I've mentioned thus far rarely if ever went over. In fact, during my manic year-long playthrough of Captive, where I was playing it 12-16 hours a day, it never crashed once. (^_~)

Ooh, you played the amiga? Nice! I was born farrrr too late to experience the Amiga, but I've always wanted to try it out. And a game crashing is always a terrible thing, it immediately makes me want to quit accessibility also shouldn't come at the cost of a normal players experience.

[Ken Hisuag]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:36 PM, ScarletPyro said:

Over the years, Videogames have been getting easier,

Have they? I don't consider myself to be that well-informed on the "retro era," and I'm aware of some of the design choices that went into arcade games that carried over past their intended purpose, so I can understand the perspective of generally decreasing difficulty. However, the modern video game industry is MASSIVE, producing many products in multiple genres and subgenres for a variety of different audiences. Rather than believe that modern games are easier, I'm inclined to assume (I acknowledge it is an assumption on my part) that the industry has just gotten larger, and thus you see the variety balance out across it. Hard games still exist, though they may not make up the majority of the industry anymore. I'm also aware of how unaware I am of game outside of my sphere of familiarity, whether in genres I don't have an interest in or from smaller publishers I haven't heard of.

Also, "hard" is technically a subjective term (loathe though I am to admit it), referring to the experience a person or group of persons has. There is a degree of consensus to it (thankfully, for the purposes of having a discussion), but it may be beneficial to determine what you consider to be difficult, and (more importantly) why;

On 7/26/2022 at 7:43 AM, buskerdog said:

Video games are ultimately a form of media, like books and music, and their main purpose is to entertain

. . . and as entertainment [serves its] functions in different ways, what is "difficult" will mean something very different according to the situation/context. For example, a "difficult" puzzle game like Baba is You is not directly comparable to a "difficult" run-and-gun platformer like Cuphead; and you may not consider one or either of those "difficult."

Edited July 30, 2022 by Ken Hisuag

[ScarletCyro]

2 minutes ago, Ken Hisuag said:

Have they? I don't consider myself to be that well-informed on the "retro era," and I'm aware of some of the design choices that went into arcade games that carried over past their intended purpose, so I can understand the perspective of generally decreasing difficulty. However, the modern video game industry is MASSIVE, producing many products in multiple genres and subgenres for a variety of different audiences. Rather than believe that modern games are easier, I'm inclined to assume (I acknowledge it is an assumption on my part) that the industry has just gotten larger, and thus you see the variety balance out across it. Hard games still exist, though they may not make up the majority of the industry anymore. I'm also aware of how unaware I am of game outside of my sphere of familiarity, whether in genres I don't have an interest in or from smaller publishers I haven't heard of.

Also, "hard" is technically a subjective term (loathe though I am to admit it), referring to the experience a person or group of persons has. There is a degree of consensus to it (thankfully, for the purposes of having a discussion), but it may be beneficial to determine what you consider to be difficult, and (more importantly) why;

. . . and as entertainment [serves its] functions in different ways, what is "difficult" will mean something very different according to the situation/context. For example, a "difficult" puzzle game like Baba is You is not directly comparable to a "difficult" run-and-gun platformer like Cuphead, and you may not consider one or either of those "difficult."

I do mostly agree with this, and that's all i can say, it's 3am over here and I am tired as hell

[Ken Hisuag]

I have more thoughts:

On 7/26/2022 at 7:43 AM, buskerdog said:

like books and music, video games are a form of art, and all art is subjective.

The nuances of art and its subcategories are not often appreciated outside of their respective audiences, and it is immensely satisfying to see these direct comparisons made. However, I would presume to amend and subsequently attempt to justify this statement, and beg your forgiveness to do so

Appreciation of art is subjective, but I believe art itself must be definable to exist in any meaningful way. I have heard art defined as "the application of science," but fear this definition is inconsistent with some specific "genres," notably the abstract arts. An alternative understanding of art is "creative expression of intent," further differentiated within itself by the manner and depth in which it is received. These would exist in in many dynamic forms, but all exhibiting the intention of the "artist" via their choice of expression; e.g., a painting for the visual depiction of some idea, either capturing a specific image or a vaguer emotion, with the success dependent upon how well the receiver understands what is being depicted. However, this position can be as inconvenient as the former; there are many films, games, and other medias produced solely for the purpose of monetary profit, and subsequently lacking severely in creative expression. Such iterations would have to be considered "art" under the first definition, but not necessarily under the second.

To rectify this paradox, I consider art in two forms: foundational, and compound. The foundational, or "proper" arts are those that are capable of existing independently of each other, mainly music, poetry and prose, and the visual arts. The compound arts are dynamic applications of the foundational arts, utilizing them together in ways that are distinct enough to warrant unique consideration. By making this distinction, I can address the artistic merits of a film or game differentiated into its parts. To this end, I consider the art of story to be a foundational art.

Even this approach has inconsistencies, and I am still trying to gain better comprehension of the subject. Nonetheless, it allows me to address each medium on its own terms and more clearly define the line between "impression" and "analysis."

. . . Should this be it's own thread?