next »

[James Edward Smith]

I think that challenge in games can always be a good thing but I think that challenge in old games always had this partner in crime who didn't need to be there but due to the rise of arcades and the coin-op arcade game early in the development of video games as a medium became thought of as this necessary mechanic, a no-brainer element that needed to be in all games even though it only made sense in coin-op games. What I'm talking about is the artificial punishment of death in games.

Why is death in so many games? Well you're a little guy and when a little guy falls on spikes or gets hit by a fireball, you die. Okay, so we are making a game about a little guy and so we want the game to simulate being a little guy to a degree because people want to control a little guy and that's fun, so when he falls on spikes or gets hit by a fire ball he should die. Now perhaps this makes sense and seems like what should happen, but what happens after he dies? Is he dead forever? Well, that would follow our logic of making this a good little guy simulation but that would sort of suck; the player wouldn't be able to play anymore. Okay, well, maybe you can have a number of guys and then when you get one killed, you get to have an other shot at the game until you run out of them.

This concept was put into so many games for so long and still plagues us today, but why is it there? It made sense for coin-ops because you had to pay money to get more lives, but look at Super Meat Boy. It says "Why have lives? Why punish the player for dying anymore than the natural punishment of the fact that they don't get to progress until they beat the thing that is killing them?

I'm very interested in the possible design philosophy of making sure that no punishment for failure ever feels artificial or unnecessary. An other game that I think personifies this well is the single player campaign of Mount & Blade. Losing a battle in that game that you didn't successfully retreat from does not result in a GAME OVER screen. Instead the game just continues to play out, you are captured and eventually you are ransomed or you escape. Your forces are now gone, lost in the battle, but you can strive to build yourself back up to where you were again. It all feels very natural and unfrustrating to me because it teaches you the dangers of going into a fight you might not win.

I'd like to lean as much in this direction with my game designing as I can. I want to try creating games that feel more organic and flexible in their sense of challenge and over coming that challenge. If I have a hard level in my game I want you to be able to try to beat it and then wimp out back to the map screen whenever you feel like it. If the level beats you and you used up resources in your attempt, the very real consequence is that now you will have to go and re acquire those resources if you want to re attempt the level with the same level of support as you had before. But All I will ever do as the designer with consequences is knock you down to your base level of existence in my game if you allow me too. I will never force you back or force you to literally restart with nothing.

[baconman]

Let's not forget the Narratist favorite stimulation:

PLOT (suspense/advancement)

But I do agree, that "losing" a game should have it's consequences (perhaps part of a level-branching or ability-branching system?), but not always an outright "GAME OVER." For instance, imagine a platformer game that allowed you to actually skip some levels by successfully speedrunning, or high-completioning a level, or completing it without taking a hit (think Warp Zone, but more automatic), and might even make you backtrack to a completely different level for losing; or have added/taken abilities for doing so. Like a SMB where pro-running 1-2 took you to 5-3 instead of 1-3; or losing on 2-3 took you back to a roughly-equal part of 2-2.

[s0]

This concept was put into so many games for so long and still plagues us today, but why is it there? It made sense for coin-ops because you had to pay money to get more lives, but look at Super Meat Boy. It says "Why have lives? Why punish the player for dying anymore than the natural punishment of the fact that they don't get to progress until they beat the thing that is killing them?

I'm seeing this thrown around a lot as of late, but I think it ignores two important factors: Challenging games are obstacle courses and beating things (levels, individual obstacles, etc.) in sequence can be a challenge in itself. Also, putting more at stake can make a game more exciting.

About "natural" vs. "artificial" punishment: Games already are "artificial" or, to use a better word, fictional, so I don't really see a problem with including punishments that would be illogical if the world the game is set in were real, unless you're specifically trying to make a simulation.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"Challenge is fundamental for interaction, like light for visuals, and vibration for sound. (?)"

i can think of interactive things which are not challenging; for instance, petting a cat, or opening a door, or making tea. of course they don't have *zero* challenge because not everyone can do those things, but they have so little challenge to most people as to be negligible. i don't think it'd make those activities more fun if i had to work harder to do them.

[gimymblert]

But is it challenge or is it skills? Or maybe it's a challenge but not challenging?



By the way I had completed my framework. It seems all activity have a "progression", that's what you need to plot with stimulation (a serie of stimulation, generally challenge). It didn't work only on using stimulation, only if stimulation is a function of progression:

Progression (step (stimulation (closure (tension/relief))))

The binary unit (tension/relief) is a closure, it give you the satisfaction of wholeness of an experience (ie Joke with not take fall flat).

Using that framework for analyzing game step by step show a completely new image of some game!

Minecraft for exemple is not based on "challenge" but totally on avoiding it! The only challenge lie in fighting monster, which is pretty meaningless and the tools are not very good for it, they only help to cope with it. Most of the game lie in preparation against that challenge (placing torch, building house, etc...). I would say minecraft is more based on the horror stimulation (driven by fear and relief).

And I identify 3 differents progression type:

-explorative or recursive (toward uncertainty or simply random next step)
-Push (avoidance of something)
-Pull (towards a goal)

The original Sims game was recursive, mario is pulling you and minecraft is pushing/recursive exploration. I think the 1st type is the most difficult to plot for efficiently while the third is the easiest.

What do you think of this framework? Did it seem coherent and useful? Is there a flaw or something I didn't consider?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"What do you think of this framework? Did it seem coherent and useful? Is there a flaw or something I didn't consider?"

i can't understand it due to weird english, so i can't really say much about it

[s0]

Minecraft for exemple is not based on "challenge" but totally on avoiding it! The only challenge lie in fighting monster, which is pretty meaningless and the tools are not very good for it, they only help to cope with it. Most of the game lie in preparation against that challenge (placing torch, building house, etc...). I would say minecraft is more based on the horror stimulation (driven by fear and relief).

But isn't avoiding combat in Minecraft a challenge as well? And what about Thief, Tenchu and other stealth games? Or tower defense games?

I dunno, you seem to be using a very different definition of "challenge" from the commonly accepted one. Is it possible that this entire thread isn't about combat, not challenge?

[J-Snake]

Speaking of design-decisions: Let's take a concrete situation I currently go through.

To make it clear just imagine I am making a game whith action-driven gameplay-elements. Some levels or parts of them can be traversed in one flow, similar to the bike-level in Battletoads. We all know how frustrating that level was and personally I think the reason is that the hardcore part comes at the end, you spend time and go all the level through and then suddenly you have to pull off extreme skills.

So I am not sure it is a good idea to place the hardest parts at the end. It is also important to mention that in my game you will start the level from the beginning every time you fail. So given that situation it is somehow  paradox. Usually you expect something to get harder and harder while progressing, while on the other hand you are not allowed to practice the hardest part more frequently. So  I think there has to be a compromise, making the difficulty-increase not to steep and placing the most difficult part not totally at the end but one or some steps before can help.

Here is a concrete example. The action-driven approach starts at 2:40. It can be divided into 4 parts. The first one starts with getting past the cherry-bombs. The transition to each part allows you to rest and concentrate for the next move-string (the tension and release aspect) You probably also notice that the hardest part is not at the end but one part before. The last 2 flytraps have still be treated with care but you are on the way to chill down.





But I would like to know what you think about that. Regarding something similar to Battletoads bike-level, how would you design the difficulty-progress?

[gimymblert]

@Sinclair
I think I correlate challenge with skill, there isn't much skill in minecraft IMHO, the pattern are pretty obvious after a short time. You just had to do things right and in the right order.

When you get a bit adventurous and let things get messy it escalate quickly to a creeper explosion. Since playing the game that way is boring, there is always hole for uncertainty to creep ... BOOM

It's pretty like farmville but with more "horror". There is nothing to solve in farmville, only things to "do", "busy work". Animal crossing too can be seen as a busy work game. Full of trivial task. The sims for exemple have buzzy work but you have the challenge to solve happiness, it doesn't stray too much from traditional design, it push you toward actions. Minecraft you can just sit there if you have already a house and a bunch of torch, aside from "exploitative" progression, there is nothing more to do. From a design perspective it makes minecraft even more noteworthy and awesome, it really break the mold.

Or maybe you could say the skill is "concentration"

Stealth game are very different because you directly oppose "obstacle" You need to go A to B and "solve" that path. Event in that path are carefully laid by the designer to generate diversity of situation from the same basic bricks. Totally different.

Tower defense is pretty much the same, you have something to solve.

[gimymblert]

@J snake
There is also another way to balance difficulty: faking it!
Generally when I plot a level I use this older Framework:

Rhythm, tonality, theme, style (fictional experience)
Spectacular, tempo (Gameplay experience)
Danger, difficulty, complexity (core gameplay, can be reel or illusionary)

The trick is to layer dissonant or consonant aspects of these elements.

Core gameplay especially, they can be reel or illusionary. A ceiling full of spike just 1 pixel out of reach from maximal jumping is faking dangerousness, the player will never be harmed, A pit full of moving projectile can be impressive (spectacular + dangerous) but all you have to do is walk in straight line at any pace (no difficulty).

By using fake difficulty you can hide the real difficulty in seemingly calm zone and up the spectacular but decrease it when in a more spectacular and visually saturate zone.

Complexity is the number of effort you ask to the player, for exemple, room where you have a simple lock and key puzzle filler is complex but not difficult nor dangerous.

To the point now:
I would advise you to keep in mind a structure close to story:
(introduction) The first part of the level (always safe) should set the overall tone and expectation.
(conflict) Once the player is out this zone he should encounter an exemple of the main level motif but with no real difficulty but a mild complexity, just to set the basic skill needed.
(development) From there ramp up the game by alternating stimulation but keeping the difficulty average.
(Twist) At the climax use a spike of difficulty where it's really tight to pass through (relative to the overall difficulty of the level) that the player feel he barely made through. It should be remember as the "damn hard spot".
(2nd development)Then decrease intensity and slow the pacing for a while and restart ramping up faster.
(Climax) A similar situation to the twist should happen but with the spectacular upped while the difficulty is imperceptibly looser, having seen the situation the first time the player would be keep on his toe and think it's more difficult because of the fakeness + spectacular + complexity added. When the player pass this point he will feel better and awesome because of the tension you pressure him with the fakery to restart the level.
(Resolution) It's best to finish the level by slowly decreasing everything into a cakewalk but that demonstrate the main experience of the game, possibly ending with a cliff hanger with an optional skill based challenge (mario bros 1 literally have a cliff hanging with the pole that also emphasis the main experience of jumping, sonic let you run as fast as possible and zip through a panel and timed jump let you have a bit more bonus point or even a special zone if you get the giant ring in the short time frame just after the panel).

Of course this just a template. You can shuffle things a bit.

Edit:
Nice little game on the video

Also look that:



It's interesting because there just a few spike of difficulty, most happen in seemingly non threatening places where the player feel in control but have tight timing and positioning. Everything else is full of faking. There is also a lot of pacing event. It's also the last time sonic team made something decent and subtle.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if challenge just means 'skill' in the sense of skill at an action then that means that most puzzle games are not challenging, because they involve no 'skill' really. you just solve puzzles by trying to figure them out, and if you know the solution it's easy. like the 'grow' games: there's no skill involved, it's mostly trial and error and deduction, but it's still quite challenging. similarly, adventure games like machinarium involve no skill, but are challenging.

[J-Snake]

There won't be any faking in this game. What you see is what you get. What I will do is to make different (up to 3) difficulty-versions of many/most levels. It will also help to increase the total number of levels more quickly.

@ Paul Eres: The hardest puzzle-levels in TrapThem can't be solved just by a trial and error approach and I think it is a good thing to reward skilled players. You will need to understand certain concepts and make a planned and creative combined use of them to find the solution. It is more than just randomly trying things out. But the significant part is that it doesn't end just by finishing a level. But I think it is better to offer several solutions with varying difficulties and reward the player with awards if they for example found a way how to make in unnoticed or in a minimal number of steps, things like that should keep every freak busy.

[gimymblert]

Every good game have faking I know had faking, but it all depends on your aesthetics. This was thread to go beyond pure challenge aesthetics.

At least you can still layer complexity, difficulty and danger with differing frequency.

[gimymblert]

if challenge just means 'skill' in the sense of skill at an action then that means that most puzzle games are not challenging, because they involve no 'skill' really. you just solve puzzles by trying to figure them out, and if you know the solution it's easy. like the 'grow' games: there's no skill involved, it's mostly trial and error and deduction, but it's still quite challenging. similarly, adventure games like machinarium involve no skill, but are challenging.

I have clearly said that skill is when you "solve" something, opposed to busy work.

"puzzle game" like match Three are generally busy work but still support challenge with scoring mechanics if you want to go beyond.

Of course if you know the solution to a puzzle there is nothing to solve, no skill, no challenge, just pure execution.

[J-Snake]

Faking in a puzzle game isn't pretty aesthetic. But what I personally like in this case is to design maps that trick the players anticipation. An obvious and easy looking path can turn out as dead end in the end.

Yeah, if you know the solution then there is just execution. Fortunately in some games there are several solutions Or you can polish up your solution by achieving the goal in less steps, as example. The player can discover new tricks how to make it faster and such. I think it is the way to go to reward the player or at least keep track of these statistics.

[baconman]

To the point now:
I would advise you to keep in mind a structure close to story:
(introduction) The first part of the level (always safe) should set the overall tone and expectation.
(conflict) Once the player is out this zone he should encounter an exemple of the main level motif but with no real difficulty but a mild complexity, just to set the basic skill needed.
(development) From there ramp up the game by alternating stimulation but keeping the difficulty average.
(Twist) At the climax use a spike of difficulty where it's really tight to pass through (relative to the overall difficulty of the level) that the player feel he barely made through. It should be remember as the "damn hard spot".
(2nd development)Then decrease intensity and slow the pacing for a while and restart ramping up faster.
(Climax) A similar situation to the twist should happen but with the spectacular upped while the difficulty is imperceptibly looser, having seen the situation the first time the player would be keep on his toe and think it's more difficult because of the fakeness + spectacular + complexity added. When the player pass this point he will feel better and awesome because of the tension you pressure him with the fakery to restart the level.
(Resolution) It's best to finish the level by slowly decreasing everything into a cakewalk but that demonstrate the main experience of the game, possibly ending with a cliff hanger with an optional skill based challenge

Unfortunately, close cohesion to this formula is exactly what makes many of these games (especially since we've played 200 of them now) really ridiculously stale. There is a certain point at which danger can't be "faked" anymore, it must be genuine, even in the early part of the stage. Replacing "losing potential" with repetition both leads to a more frustrating experience and one that's less rewarding.

Speaking of "rewarding," there should usually be a phase or two of that in there, too. A part where they dynamic of the level is designed to be as openly fun as possible to play around with, not strictly skill-based. Another thing is taking concepts from a later level, and executing them earlier in the game, in optional sub-paths. This gives a genuine joy to replay value (or a potential "warp zone" for those already skilled in these games), in that you discover things upon replaying that you didn't immediately consider on your first trip through.

[gimymblert]

That's the problem with the challenge framework, people forget to play with expectation, and it's also the whole point of this thread.

Before people didn't have the challenge framework, all they did was to make the game HARD and everything else by intuition. There was a lot of broken moment which was altogether rooms for frustration but also surprise and delight. It was hit or miss but memorable.

The advent of the challenge framework theory had flatten game toward an average and almost cut any unreasonable quirks.

This framework is not bad, but generally people hung to much to "it must be challenging" and the opposite claim "it must not". This is ridicule and deride game of their value and overshadow many other important elements.

Challenge may be FUN, but FUN is not (solely) challenge.

[J-Snake]

It depends on the game you are making. If Tetris wouldn't be challenging it wouldn't be interesting, exciting and fun. The same trend goes to puzzler's. Other than that challenge has various forms, if you stick just to one it can be boring and frustrating. If you utilize all forms of challenge your game-mechanics has to offer then you are making a rich game.

[gimymblert]

I'm not saying challenge is irrelevant! But even if you vary things it's not the experience. Variation should be the experience not a trick to pull out. If your variation is not exciting it's just a filler, which is another sin.

[J-Snake]

If you have a different form of challenge you can automatically have a variation in experience added. Of course it has to be engaging and challenging enough, or else it might just appear as a plain filler, like you said.

I would like to know what those faking elements in that sonic-vid are.