Summary
Difficulty is among the most contentious topics in video game discourse. On the one side are the purists who prize the clarity of design and hold perseverance in the face of unwavering adversity to be a gamer’s greatest virtue. On the other hand, there are those who view difficulty asan accessibility issue, arguing that freedom of choice is always a plus and that nobody should be excluded from an experience because of circumstances beyond their control. Between the two are many other disembodied hands, wreathing in a chaotic bed, each variously pointing fingers, counting arguments on their digits, and occasionally flashing rude gestures at one another.
A discussion of difficulty levels in video games is as fraught as the most difficult level in the most difficult video game. After all, some people are good at twiddling their thumbs on plastic in a specific way, while others arenotas good at twiddling their thumbs on plastic in a specific way. Difficulty levels are comparable to spice levels; getting the intensity right is subjective. What tickles the touchpad tastebuds for one person may, for another, ruin the experience by salting the meal with searing pain. That all being said, here are the best ways in which game developers have taken on the challenge of challenge.
In games where player skill takes a back seat to character skill (i.e., a battle is mostly determined by stats and not by the player’s ability to adapt or learn), grinding can turn a game into a full-time job, albeit an ostensibly compelling job with pleasing music and an occasional dopamine hit. For some, this is an ideal way to unwindor clear a few podcastsoff the “to-do” list. However, most gamers will probably have a negative association with the term, especially when grinding is mandatory for passing certain roadblocks. The only advantage of creating difficulty by mandating grinding time is that it takes players much longer to complete the game, which is useful in MMOs likeOld School Runescape, where interacting with other players makes up half of the content.
Slowing players down is one thing, but grind mandates can easily be exploited for sinister purposes. The fact that some games offer players ways to increase experience point gain or jump levels for real-world money says it all. Exploiting players' psychological vulnerabilities to get them to grind might be leveraged to increase player retention. Players susceptible to the “sunk cost fallacy” are especially vulnerable and will find themselves trapped in a miserable loop, all to get to the next stage, which will inevitably require an inordinate amount of grinding to clear, too.
From a game design perspective, this is likely the fairest, easiest, and most cost-effective way to solve the issue of difficulty. Picking a difficulty might be the first choice players make in a game likeDoomorWolfenstein. An interesting variation can be found inS.T.A.L.K.E.R., which makes it so that everyone (enemies and the player) hits harder and reduces combat time either way. Another example most people will be familiar with isThe Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim. From the options menu, players move a slider from easy to difficult, scaling both the enemies' hit points and their damage against the player. Numbers-based difficulty modes are by no means bad, and there is a reason they have remained a traditional feature of video games for so long.
The concept works fine forhardcore, twitchy shootersand can be fun for players to increase the pressure and test their skill on subsequent playthroughs. However, if implemented poorly, higher difficulty modes create “bullet sponge” enemies that only seem to challenge the player’s patience as they unload clip after clip into an unnaturally HP-bloated foe. Expecting new players to choose the right difficulty without ever having played the game could be considered clumsy by modern standards. Further, nobody enjoys the condescending judgment for playing easy mode, and hard mode might end up being a deal-breaking carnival of bullet sponges.
Practically every structured or linear game uses some difficulty curve, and it is frequently paired with other difficulty types. A clear example isSuper Mario World, which begins with a fairly easy difficulty and gradually gets more and more intense. The designer’s job is to find an acceptable trajectory in accordance with their vision for the game and provide an adequate number of pickups, health packs, and checkpoints along the way to help their players maintain a sense of flow. Failing to nail this either results in a frustrating or boring experience. Some games progressively empower a player’s character but balance this by throwing progressively harder enemies at them.
The player’s reward, in this case, is that they will easily be able to defeat weaker enemies (unless the designers implement the much-despised level scaling model). A third option is to allow players to gradually make the game easier by sacrificing their time (AKA grinding). This provides a cut-and-dry “out” for those struggling to overcome a hurdle, but it can potentially ruin the curve by making the game too easy (or annoying if it becomes mandatory).Lost Oddyseydoes an excellent job of navigating this issue bycapping the amount players can grind, should they feel the need to in the first place.
2Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment
Matching The Player’s Flow After Each Success And Failure
A smart, programmatic way to resolve the tension between player skill and the game’s challenge is to simply have the difficulty rise or fall depending on the player’s performance.Resident Evil 4is perhaps the most well-known example, but manyother games have used adaptive difficultyto great effect. So not to confuse players about the potency of their weapons or the strength of their enemies, games with dynamic difficulty adjustment alter the number of available health packs and the size of enemy spawn pools rather than the amount of enemy HP or damage potential.
The effectiveness of dynamic difficulties depends on the player’s appetite for pain. Players may feel a sense of condescension or even humiliation if they realize that the game has suddenly taken it easy on them. On the other hand, someone just looking to enjoy the experience will appreciate being allowed to slip back into a flow state without being burned by excessive friction, especially if the game can keep the adjustments hidden (for example, after dying a few times, the player doesn’t just spawn in the same area with fewer enemies).
Instead of asking the player to self-assess their ability or grind for gear or XP, some games give their players the opportunity to raise the stakes. For example,Shovel Knightplayers do not have to find a menu to increase the risk and reward dynamic. Choosing to destroy a save point will grant them a trove of loot but a longer walk back if they perish. A game likeMinecraftmay have difficulty settings, but the real difficulty is determined by how deep the player digs as they accumulate more and more valuables. The inverse can be used for games with a high baseline difficulty. Players who are struggling to overcomespicy challenges that hardcore players will appreciatecan adopt a different playstyle to get by if they are made available. The only problem is telegraphing that an easier way to play is even available.
If implemented correctly, players will feel the relief of being able to continue if they are not sufficiently skilled, and they get some satisfaction for discovering the winning strategy. In other cases, players are left with the mistaken belief that there is no way to move forward, which could ultimately lead them to quit. A prime example isDark Souls, in which new players can make their lives much easier by opting for a ranged build, preferably with magic. Severalitems that make Dark Souls more manageablecan be found in the earlier parts of the game, as does summoning another player to help. Providing higher or lower difficulties as an opt-in choice frequently (and diegetically) is expensive from a design perspective, but it provides the most complete and fair distribution of difficulty for all players.
