Dumbing down the game... Yes/No

[HumanNinja 144]

I'm not sure if this is a problem or not so I wanted to get a few opinions.

 

First, let me say my project utilizes an ABS. Boss fights in my project are difficult. Bosses launch varying types of attacks, move about a bit (depending on the boss type of course), call for allies, require puzzle/problem solving, and even the environment can sometimes injure the PC.

 

Even the traps/puzzles can be difficult (mostly because they require you to not only accomplish a task but to also worry about incoming damage, whether from a trap or an enemy). Basically, it's quite likely for you to die multiple times throughout a stage. Before every puzzle/event or whatever, there is a save crystal. Some just allow for a save, some allow for MP restoration, and some allow for both HP and MP restoration.

 

I've tried to limit the number of restorative items in the game so that there isn't an overabundance. I want players to learn how to dodge and/or block attacks not just spam the healing potions.

 

As of now, I'm having a hard time defeating the stage 1 boss in my project during playtesting. I'm probably 1 for 4 on average. Is that a good thing or is that maybe too difficult? Take into account, the first boss requires no special trickery or puzzle solving to be defeated. You only need to dodge/block attacks and strike. There is however, floor damage in some parts of the 'boss fight scene' map.

 

So I'm really asking: What are your opinions on difficulty in regards to what I've mentioned about my project?

[Fafnir 34]

I actually think being difficult sounds like a good thing. Kind of a Demons/Dark Souls style. If people can get used to how those games play then I'm sure they'd get used to the difficulty of yours.

 

Plus, it gives you a bit of an edge having something that's hard.

[ekomega 20]

The thing that makes Demon's/Dark Souls great is consistency and fluidity of the control scheme and design.  You know if you die that it's your fault.  The bosses have patterns, and they never surprise you if you learn what they can do.  The controls are responsive, immediate, and allow you to control your character the way you want.  The weapons and armor are designed in such a way that a person can play however they want, and find a weapon that fits their style (with the exception of Lord Gwyn, who is a lot easier to beat if you use a shield).

 

If you have all of these things, then difficulty isn't a problem (per se).  However, if the fights are cheap, use random tactics, and a player feels the game is unfair, that is a problem.

[amerk 1,122]

In a more difficult game, there should be a pattern to follow, although it doesn't have to be an easy pattern. Generally, the enemies should follow some sort of pattern that the player (after multiple tries) will be able to pick up on. If it's all just random, a difficult game may turn off a lot of people, especially if there is no guarantee that the player's hard work and careful planning will ever pay off.

[HumanNinja 144]

Well, all the bosses will follow an attack pattern. The first boss casts a def down skill right away, moves a bit, casts a spell, moves a bit, casts a spell, moves a bit, casts a spell, and then repeats this process. Only one of the spells follows a random trajectory and that's because it's an aoe attack. Honestly, I believe the first boss will be one of the easiest because it's mainly just a hack-n-slash battle. As the stages progress, so will the amount of thought and planning needed to defeat a boss.

 

So from what you all are telling me, I'm moving in the right direction. I guess we'll see how people react to the demo when it comes out. I'm going to finish two more stages before releasing it so, maybe not too much longer.

 

Thanks for the input.

[amerk 1,122]

Pretty much. I don't mind difficult games where I die at the boss, assuming I had an opportunity to save somewhere previously and didn't lose an hour plus of dungeon crawling. Figuring out the pattern is what made old platformers so much more rewarding, because once you did figure it out, you were able to beat the level and move on.

 

Suddenly I'm reminded of Super Marios Bros World 8-2 for NES. At the time I was playing this back in the mid-80's, this had to have been one of the most difficult levels (not to mention game) I had ever played.

[casper667 131]

It depends on what you're going for, really. Difficult games are not very popular anymore, so if your goal is to get lots of people to play it you might want to dumb it down a bit or make other mechanics easier - such as including more restoration items in the beginning areas. Also, if you the designer can only beat the first and easiest boss 1 in 4 times (after many attempts I'm assuming), you might have a problem. You have to remember that you know your own game a lot better than any of your players, so if it is difficult for you it will be very difficult for your players.

 

I find that most people just quit on a game if it's too hard, especially in the beginning. If anything, I would at least try to start out pretty basic and easy, and then if you want to you can increase the difficulty gradually or include some difficult optional content.

[HumanNinja 144]

@casper667: By 'difficult' in regards to the first boss, I'm really talking about needing to keep an eye on your health and avoiding/blocking attacks. The first boss is hack-n-slash so it's not difficult because the pattern is too hard to figure out or because there are not enough healing items. And from what others have said, I don't think I want to make it easy for the lazy people and no fun for the people who desire a challenge. People who dies once and quit aren't really going to be that interested in anything I would think. I sure don't want to alienate any potential gamers from playing something I made but, I don't want to make the game easy just to cater to a few either.

 

Also, when did difficult games stop being popular? There have been quite a few games that have been best sellers and were also noted for their 'difficultly' just in the last year.

[ekomega 20]

Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are the only recent exceptions.  There are very few difficult games anymore, and those two might be the only popular ones.  They sold a lot of copies (over time, due to word of mouth) for a small publisher with a niche game, but those two didn't sell well compared with a COD or even Borderlands 2. 

[HumanNinja 144]

You're actually saying that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are the only two difficult games out there that have gained popularity? And then you're comparing them to COD, a decade old gaming franchise which happens to be one of the most popular FPS's on the market? Interesting.

[Tsukihime 1,489]

Most touhou games have predictable boss patterns. Pretty much every one of them.

While it is not an RPG, I'd still be turned off if I lost cause I ran into a stray bullet.

 

When a game is too luck based, I get bored after dying a bunch of times.

[ekomega 20]

You're actually saying that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are the only two difficult games out there that have gained popularity? And then you're comparing them to COD, a decade old gaming franchise which happens to be one of the most popular FPS's on the market? Interesting.

 

I can't think of any others, but there are so many games.  If you'd like to list others, feel free.

 

Also, I was comparing the sales of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls to a very popular franchise and to a niche RPG that sold very well.  My point was that even though Demon's/Dark Souls were successful, success is relative, and they weren't successful on an absolute scale when you consider all games (or even just RPGs).  Atlus and Bamco were happy, but I bet they would've been happier if they sold as many copies as CoD.

[Naridar 9]

A few things I'd like to add:

 

- Needing to dodge/block attacks is always good, but make sure your players are acquainted to the concept. Perhaps make a stage before the boss where you have to dodge/block incoming arrows or something. Perhaps make it worthwhile to the player to do so in all battles (maybe restore a slight bit of HP or MP, or give a boost to attacks, or give extra EXP.

 

- If there are attacks that break through blocks, make sure the players know this and don't try to block it. Like make the enemy flash before using that attack. And introduce the concept before the boss (like a strong regular enemy that has a moderately strong, block-breaking attack). On the same hand, make sure the player can dodge to a safe location (there's little sense in evading when it puts you on the damaging floor)

 

- To limit healing in boss battles while avoiding screwing the players just because they don't have enough HP and/or healing when reaching a boss, I'd advise using something similar to Path of Exile's healing system. Basically, the player has place for equipping 3 bottles (maybe 5 in easy mode, 2 in hard mode, 1 in expert mode and 0 in legendary difficulty), each having a set amount of charges. Killing an enemy fills all bottles by 1 charge. A full bottle restores 40% HP for example, while a non-full bottle can't be used. Different bottles have different charge needs and different effects (like 50 charge for "Restore 30% HP and MP"). This way, the boss summoning mooks can also serve as an opportunity to restore some charges.

[HumanNinja 144]

@Naridar:

 

-dodging/blocking: I did actually create a few rooms before the boss that shows how the first tools the PC gains can be used and how effective they can be. But, yeah, that's great advice.

 

-also great advice about the 'block-breaking' skills. It's something I've been toying with a bit. The ABS I'm using actually allows the shield to block AOE attacks if timed correctly. I'm actually just figuring that out myself.

 

-that sounds like an interesting way to handle healing while using an ABS. The amount of healing items the player can collect is, so far, something that I control through chests, enemy drops, and rewards. Although, I would like to spice it up a bit.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I'm really just trying to blow through this game to test out as many things as I can with the ABS. So all input/feedback will be useful, esp. when the game is finally finished and people can play it. I'd like to get as much knowledge about what works and doesn't work so that I can incorporate it into my other, more serious, project.

[+ MurgianSwordsman 36]

If you're looking for hard, look at Contra. They have interesting bosses that require you to dodge a lot. Not to mention, the game was very fair. I'm not saying to remake Contra, though, but just see what they did. Lots of "gogogo" stuff, such as endless enemies unless you keep moving, and you were never staying in the same place for too long.

[Deej 19]

Difficult is good. As long as it isn't impossible. If it's too easy it feels boring and I personally would lose interest. But If I'm constantly having to leg it away from a boss and run back and try again and things like that, it makes it fun, and when you finally beat it after so many failures it feels like a great acomplishment.

[Anderfell 2]

Sounds like Darksouls keep it as is maybe add some Buff Items like more attack or Defence and save points as rewards??

Edited March 14, 2013 by Anderfell

[Sondai 0]

ETA: I messed up the format somehow. Trying to fix it. :-/

 

Some good points were made and I agree with those who advised against making the game too difficult ... unless<you are trying to appeal to a niche like DS players, of which I'm not sure if the same would play the game. (Something worth finding out via demos/feedback etc.).

 

Even though I play difficult strategy games (i.e. Paradox) and am an avid RPGer, I'm not a DS fan and don't ″get″ it's appeal -- probably because I prioritize immersion. I make up a different demographic-- so that's where defining your intended player base can help. Conversely I enjoy difficult battles in D&D based/themed games where you can play strategically. I'm not familiar with the scope of the RPG Maker battle system or how difficult it is to employ semi-complex strategic battles successfully. I'm saving battles for last mostly.

Note that a lot of people find puzzles annoying, let alone hard ones. If the game is battle-centric I would use these sparingly and ask if they add to the game (contextually or otherwise) or are thrown in randomly as something to do.

Puzzles like unlocking ancient secrets, breaking a magical ward or hacking at a computer, do well in some games. I think the better the puzzle is related to the story, the greater the chance harder (but logical) puzzles will be tolerated, if not enjoyed.

One option is to provide an optional guide (text or video) with hints and/or walk-through. I'm playing another RPG Maker game with such and it isn't a bad experience, though some of the puzzles are obscure and may rely too heavily on this.

Otherwise, a ratio of 1 in 4 on a Boss battle seems an easy/moderate difficulty level unless you're aware of mechanics that the player is typically not. It doesn't sound like this is the case, thus far.

Lastly, I don't think you can go wrong by not being too stingy with saves ... DS is somewhat an anomaly, -- and clearly defined to be one, priding itself on its difficulty. Though I do know people who try to replay a less difficult game without saving and reloading, and letting the player decide is a good thing, I think.

One of the biggest complaints about modern games on Steam or elsewhere is console port play/saves. A story/game has to be really good -- aka Assassins Creed 2 -- to repeatedly play a long event without giving up and the need to repeat should be based largely on a player improving their skill (which should be self-evident to the player), not because of an arbitrary difficulty setting.

And if the game is not skill-based this may feel a waste of time to the player.

 

At least that is my opinion. :-)

Edited March 15, 2013 by Sondai

[+ MurgianSwordsman 36]

I too am kinda tackling this problem. My game is kinda battle-oriented, but also, I like getting the player into the game, and into the world. I think that it's because I'm writing a graphic novel, so I like to immerse my reader/player into my worlds. But, I also like difficulty in games. Or...just to be mean, you could make it like the hardcore in Diablo II, where if you die, you must start over.

[Radiant Arin 412]

I too am kinda tackling this problem. My game is kinda battle-oriented, but also, I like getting the player into the game, and into the world. I think that it's because I'm writing a graphic novel, so I like to immerse my reader/player into my worlds. But, I also like difficulty in games. Or...just to be mean, you could make it like the hardcore in Diablo II, where if you die, you must start over.

Shaiya.

 

If you die in that game on Ultimate Difficulty, if you don't get a Res within 3 minutes, you lose your character.

 

Along with 1,000,000,000 Gold, all those Purples, PvP items, mounts, and your dignity.

 

The bad thing about it, though, is you have to pay actual money if you want Self-Resurrection stones, and no one wants to do that.

 

Anyways, when I think of "dumbing down", I think "oh, there's lots of healthy tutorials to get everyone started, the beginning part of the game is easy, the beginning is also active and expansive, and you have just enough resources to get by, but not enough to consider it a cakewalk".

[+ MurgianSwordsman 36]

I myself, in my tutorial for my old game, made sure that the player knows that it's not a cakewalk. That even in the tutorial, you could very well die. This was to make the player know that the boss fights were going to be hard. I also gave the player the resources, more then enough to get by, and it was still a challenge.