{"id":36902,"date":"2017-02-09T06:00:40","date_gmt":"2017-02-09T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shamusyoung.com\/twentysidedtale\/?p=36902"},"modified":"2017-02-08T05:47:26","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T10:47:26","slug":"arkham-city-part-3-a-difficult-discussion-on-difficulty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shamusyoung.com\/twentysidedtale\/?p=36902","title":{"rendered":"Arkham City Part 3: A Difficult Discussion on Difficulty"},"content":{"rendered":"

For a long time I’ve been wanting to contrast Batman with Dark Souls. But every time I get into it I realize we’re just going to end up having the same frustrating arguments that always arise whenever someone mentions Dark Souls. <\/p>\n

Dark Souls is famous for being “hard”. But then some people will insist, with a straight face, that Dark Souls is “Not that hard” and someone else says the game is “Tough but fair” and someone else says it’s not hard because videogame torture devices like I Wanna Be The Guy<\/a> exist. Still other people use Dark Souls as a universal metaphor of arduous challenge. As in: “Ghost Peppers are the Dark Souls of spicy food.” <\/p>\n

On top of this is the judgemental attitudes people throw at each other over what difficulty level they play on. George Carlin once said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Have you ever noticed when you’re driving that anyone who’s driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Anyone playing easier than you is a filthy casual noob and anyone playing the game harder than you is a masochistic tryhard. <\/p>\n

The point is that some people are really particular about what difficulty levels other people should play on, and so every discussion on what difficulty is ends up getting sidetracked into this side-argument on the “intended experience” and “the right way to play”.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Three Dimensional Difficulty <\/h3>\n

You only play on Ultra-Violence? Why don't you just stick to walking simulators? Filthy casual.<\/div>
You only play on Ultra-Violence? Why don't you just stick to walking simulators? Filthy casual.<\/div><\/p>\n

On top of this, our conversations about game difficulty are fundamentally broken. We have countless people all arguing past each other because they all have different standards and criteria for determining what makes a game “hard”. We’ve been using a simplistic model that imagines difficulty as something that exists on a single axis, with the low end being “easy” and the high end being “hard”. And to a certain extent, this makes sense. That’s how the games themselves present it. <\/p>\n

Back in the days of Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM, selecting “New Game” would take you to a menu where you can choose somewhere on the gradient between “Ultimate Baby Mode” and “Technically Possible for Humans”. And that system has stuck around. But since then games have grown in sophistication, audience, and complexity. We have more games than ever before and those games offer a greater range of experiences to appeal to more varying tastes. Games have long since evolved past the stage of being simple mechanical challenges designed to devour quarters, and so I think it’s time we updated the way we think about difficulty. <\/p>\n

I’m going to put forth the notion that game difficulty is at least a three-dimensional problem. If we want to pull apart what makes some games “hard” or “easy” then I think we can talk about three independant design choices that all feed into this concept we call “difficulty”.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Mastery\n
  2. Strictness\n
  3. Punishment<\/ol>\n

    I realize making up nomenclature and sorting things into categories is a horribly<\/i> tedious and pretentious thing to do. But I think it’s less tedious than the misunderstandings we keep having over difficulty, and if trying to clear that up gets me marked as pretentious, then I’m willing to bear that burden. <\/p>\n

    Look, you don’t have to use my definitions, and you don’t have to divide difficulty up like I do. But I hope we can at least agree that when we talk about a game being “hard” we’re dealing with more than one concept.<\/p>\n

    Mastery<\/h3>\n

    I am REALLY good at the part of the game where you sit and watch predetermined events play out.<\/div>
    I am REALLY good at the part of the game where you sit and watch predetermined events play out.<\/div><\/p>\n

    I think of mastery as how much mechanical depth the game has to offer. Like, “How good can you get at the game?” Or, how much better is the best player from the worst, and how easy is it to tell the difference?<\/p>\n

    In the 2013 reboot of Tomb Raider there’s a sequence where Lara is sliding down a hill as the tumbling wreckage of an aircraft bears down on her. There’s debris in the way, and the player has to slide around the obstacles to reach the bottom alive. If you make a mistake, you die and start over. <\/p>\n

    Let’s imagine two players are both going through this sequence. One is a new player who’s just barely good enough to get through it, and the other is the world champion Tomb Raiderer. This player is the greatest and most legendary human being to ever raid a tomb or slide down this particular hill. <\/p>\n

    By watching the screen, can you tell which one of them is playing? Probably not. You can’t do this section faster, or more efficiently, or more stylishly. There aren’t secret techniques, special moves, or shortcuts. You either pass or fail. Once you’re good enough to make it through alive, you’ve effectively become as good as you can get at this.<\/p>\n