next »

[fab]

My games a far to hard to play. I always end up thinking the player will find the game too easy or get bored. But then it ends up becoming so hard that it's frustrating.

For my next games I'm going to try and make them easier and more about experiencing a feeling. I will see what people think of that and adjust it in future games to balance it better.

I played Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons the other day and it was very easy but I loved it for some reason. I'm not really sure why.

Any one else had this problem or think games should be easier or harder?

[s0]

the #1 remedy for this problem is playtesters. you yourself can't really judge how difficult your game is because you're so intimately familiar with it.

[bdsowers]

In the game I'm working on, I fly through it easily - usually my playtimes are in the 2-3 minute range (it's a mobile casual game). When I put it in front of new people, they're usually dead within 5 seconds. The first 5-10 times they play.

The moral here is that I no longer have a good impression of the game's difficulty. I'm (a) a skilled player, and (b) able to predict enemy behavior better because I told the enemies what to do. But the game is still doing exactly what I want it to do - I WANT players to die early and often and try to discover new ways to survive longer.

I don't think games should be "easier" or "harder." I think games should pick a feeling and own it. Dark Souls is fun, Kirby's Epic Yarn is fun. One is brutally hard and one is trivially easy, and I have fun with both. If you want to make a game about experiencing a feeling, decide what feeling that is, and adjust your difficulty (with the help of playtesters) to match. Use playtesters of various skill levels, find out where they're getting stuck, and see how you can address that while still maintaining the type of game you want to make.

[Alec S.]

Yeah, a good rule of thumb is that if the game feels like the right difficulty for you, as the designer, it's way too hard.  It's a combination of the fact that you know your own game inside and out, you've played it repeatedly in testing it, and also the fact that you probably designed it to feel good to you, and act exactly how you expect, while other people need to get a feel for the game and get the hang of it.

Like other people have said, get people to playtest it.

Also, something to note that, while the answer is often just take away enemies, place fewer obstacles, ect... sometimes the answer can also be that you need to communicate to the player better.  If there's something that's blindsiding them, maybe telegraph it better, or let the player see it for a little while before it poses a direct threat to them.  Maybe if the player is having trouble with a certain mechanic, give them a level or two with challenges that use that mechanic in isolation so they can get the hang of it before you throw them into a situation where they have to use it as one of many tools at their disposal.

[Gamedragon]

Dark Souls is fun, Kirby's Epic Yarn is fun. One is brutally hard and one is trivially easy, and I have fun with both.

Yeah, Kirby's Epic Yarn is bloody difficult.

Yeah, a good rule of thumb is that if the game feels like the right difficulty for you, as the designer, it's way too hard.  It's a combination of the fact that you know your own game inside and out, you've played it repeatedly in testing it, and also the fact that you probably designed it to feel good to you, and act exactly how you expect, while other people need to get a feel for the game and get the hang of it.

Is this always true though? I mean, I've found that my playtesters are usually better at my game than I am, probably because I'm shit at games. I guess the point still stands though, playtest, then playtest some more.

[Alec S.]

Yeah, a good rule of thumb is that if the game feels like the right difficulty for you, as the designer, it's way too hard.  It's a combination of the fact that you know your own game inside and out, you've played it repeatedly in testing it, and also the fact that you probably designed it to feel good to you, and act exactly how you expect, while other people need to get a feel for the game and get the hang of it.

Is this always true though? I mean, I've found that my playtesters are usually better at my game than I am, probably because I'm shit at games. I guess the point still stands though, playtest, then playtest some more.

Of course anyone's mileage may vary.  But very often I've seen indie developers designing the game to be a satisfying difficulty for themselves, and having it be much too difficult for most players.  And, yeah, like you said, no way to know how other people are going to react to your game until you get other people to try it.

Additionally, an important thing I've been told about playtesting: try to avoid talking to your tester while they play, aside from asking for their thoughts.  Try not to tell them what they should be doing, or help them if they get stuck, or tell them useful techniques (I mean, unless not doing so grinds testing to a halt, you take a note of the problem area, and give them just enough information to move on).  Players getting stuck on things or not figuring out how to perform certain actions are exactly the things you should be testing for.

[Gamedragon]

Yeah, I really need to get better at not staring over people's shoulders and giving them directions.

[quantumpotato]

Yeah, I really need to get better at not staring over people's shoulders and giving them directions.

Well there you go =)

Just try watching people for 10 minutes at a time or so. If they don't even last 10, you know something's up!