Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
REALISTIC DIFFICULTY CURVE?
Posts
Paxni
14
Paxni
View playlists
CloseIt's simple. When you create a video game, at what level do you want it to increase in difficulty?
I usually like for a game to be relatively easy for the first one or two *large parts* (dungeons and things of that nature), then increase in difficulty. As far as RPGs, I like when you have to grind in order to make certain fights less hard, just so it's not an entirely linear action of going through the story.
I usually like for a game to be relatively easy for the first one or two *large parts* (dungeons and things of that nature), then increase in difficulty. As far as RPGs, I like when you have to grind in order to make certain fights less hard, just so it's not an entirely linear action of going through the story.
I agree with the "easing in" of the player, but throughout the rest of the game there should definitely be hills and valleys of difficulty. They don't need to be crazy (though they can be) and if you can hint at them in-game, it's even better. Having a completely predictable, steady curve is noticeable by the player and can get old fast.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I definitely hate the ability to grind to make boss fights easier.
Hate hate hate hate HATE HATE HATE.
Hey, here's a challenge! This is, like, a climactic moment of the game, a major challenge designed to test your skills and wits in a way that most battles don't, one of the most fun things you'll do in the game. But you don't have to do it. In fact, you shouldn't. We're going to design the game to strongly encourage you to spend 2 hours being bored instead, which in turn will let you skip this challenge and get straight back to more of the boring part.
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck RAAAAGE
Hate hate hate hate HATE HATE HATE.
Hey, here's a challenge! This is, like, a climactic moment of the game, a major challenge designed to test your skills and wits in a way that most battles don't, one of the most fun things you'll do in the game. But you don't have to do it. In fact, you shouldn't. We're going to design the game to strongly encourage you to spend 2 hours being bored instead, which in turn will let you skip this challenge and get straight back to more of the boring part.
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck RAAAAGE
The difficulty curve I described earlier applies to any kind of game, but another aspect must be considered for RPGs: avatar strength. As an avatar levels up, his power rises, and the difficulty curve (with all its spikes and valleys) must be considered in relation to the avatar strength curve. Unfortunately, when you as a designer don't know how strong your player's avatar will be at any time, balancing this curve to maintain the game's challenge becomes difficult or impossible.
This is an inherit flaw in the "standard" RPG, in that player knowledge and creativity (the skills they are gaining as they play your game) can be (or in some cases, must be) replaced by meaningless avatar strength based on play time.
I find it very very hard to play RPGs or AAA games with RPG elements today, because they've figured out how to stretch game length without having to design better gameplay, at it really comes off as cheap after a while. RPG elements are fine when the solid game design is there with it - such as the original Modern Warfare, where online gameplay was a blast and the Rank-Up rewards were cool but not 100% necessary. But when a developer adds them in with no forethought, usually just to lengthen gameplay, the game becomes a grind. When a game with no solid, challenging gameplay becomes a grind, the fun factor suffers immediately.
TLDR: rpg elements are okay but making the player grind instead of creating skill-based content is cheap and poor game design
edit: too much caps? welp
This is an inherit flaw in the "standard" RPG, in that player knowledge and creativity (the skills they are gaining as they play your game) can be (or in some cases, must be) replaced by meaningless avatar strength based on play time.
I find it very very hard to play RPGs or AAA games with RPG elements today, because they've figured out how to stretch game length without having to design better gameplay, at it really comes off as cheap after a while. RPG elements are fine when the solid game design is there with it - such as the original Modern Warfare, where online gameplay was a blast and the Rank-Up rewards were cool but not 100% necessary. But when a developer adds them in with no forethought, usually just to lengthen gameplay, the game becomes a grind. When a game with no solid, challenging gameplay becomes a grind, the fun factor suffers immediately.
TLDR: rpg elements are okay but making the player grind instead of creating skill-based content is cheap and poor game design
edit: too much caps? welp
Knock off the caps lock SlashPhoenix. It's dumb and obnoxious.
This is my model: A low start that increases to a peak such as a boss battle followed by a relaxed period where the player can recuperate, learn new mechanics and uses for abilities, and generally feel powerful. Then it restarts but with a higher baseline so each iteration is progressively more difficult than the last. The baseline also gets a big increase towards the end of the game when the player has completed most of their exploration and is ready to move into the end game.
This is my model: A low start that increases to a peak such as a boss battle followed by a relaxed period where the player can recuperate, learn new mechanics and uses for abilities, and generally feel powerful. Then it restarts but with a higher baseline so each iteration is progressively more difficult than the last. The baseline also gets a big increase towards the end of the game when the player has completed most of their exploration and is ready to move into the end game.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Obviously games should start out easy and get harder as they go on. RPG style progression, while fun because getting power ups is satisfying, naturally lends itself to working in the wrong direction. I have played a lot of shitty RPGs that start out hard, and get easier and easier as I play them. But there are ways of handling this problem!
1) Remove grindable content. Dragon Age, FF13, Chrono Cross, Zelda, Fire Emblem, and a billion other games create a level-up-ish reward system in which the things you do to get stronger can only be done once each. If a challenge can be repeated, it should either not give XP at all, or only give XP the first time.
2) Create a soft limit on grinding by giving the player limited resources. Basically, you want to make either gold, MP, or healing be impossible to replenish once lost. Fire Emblem and Breath of Fire 5 both do this in addition to doing the first option.
3) Make enemies level up along with the player. This is a pretty easy option in games where level ups just give you stats, but can be a lot of work if levelling up offers the player new skills and tactics.
4) Limit XP gains according to enemy difficulty. If an enemy is weaker than the player's party, give out reduced XP or none at all. This is pretty ineffective in nonlinear, open world games because the player can easily find enemies that will still give XP, and thus can still make all the boss fights and other real challenges trivial. Works well in JRPGs though.
5) Make levels offer very little increase in strength. Most of the player's strength will come from rewards after overcoming new challenges. Item drops from enemies are the classic example of this. The item drops can be equipment, they can be items that are traded for equipment, or they can be something else entirely. This works best in linear or semi-linear games where you have to defeat a boss in one area before you unlock the next area. That way you can't fight enemies that drop better items until you overcome your current challenge.
6) Reach the level cap before the end of the game. Assume the player is max level from a certain point onward, and balance your fights accordingly. You can still give out rewards such as equipment and abilities. World of Warcraft does this for at least 80% of its content, and other MMORPGs have mimicked it. Shin Megami Tensei games do this for the last 5-10% of their content.
1) Remove grindable content. Dragon Age, FF13, Chrono Cross, Zelda, Fire Emblem, and a billion other games create a level-up-ish reward system in which the things you do to get stronger can only be done once each. If a challenge can be repeated, it should either not give XP at all, or only give XP the first time.
2) Create a soft limit on grinding by giving the player limited resources. Basically, you want to make either gold, MP, or healing be impossible to replenish once lost. Fire Emblem and Breath of Fire 5 both do this in addition to doing the first option.
3) Make enemies level up along with the player. This is a pretty easy option in games where level ups just give you stats, but can be a lot of work if levelling up offers the player new skills and tactics.
4) Limit XP gains according to enemy difficulty. If an enemy is weaker than the player's party, give out reduced XP or none at all. This is pretty ineffective in nonlinear, open world games because the player can easily find enemies that will still give XP, and thus can still make all the boss fights and other real challenges trivial. Works well in JRPGs though.
5) Make levels offer very little increase in strength. Most of the player's strength will come from rewards after overcoming new challenges. Item drops from enemies are the classic example of this. The item drops can be equipment, they can be items that are traded for equipment, or they can be something else entirely. This works best in linear or semi-linear games where you have to defeat a boss in one area before you unlock the next area. That way you can't fight enemies that drop better items until you overcome your current challenge.
6) Reach the level cap before the end of the game. Assume the player is max level from a certain point onward, and balance your fights accordingly. You can still give out rewards such as equipment and abilities. World of Warcraft does this for at least 80% of its content, and other MMORPGs have mimicked it. Shin Megami Tensei games do this for the last 5-10% of their content.
Out of all those suggestions, LockeZ, I think I like 1 the most and 3 the least. 1, at least in a game like Zelda, gives you more and more abilities that work in conjunction with your previous abilities, allowing the player to increase their mastery of the basics and their skill level overall.
I dislike 3 because it feels like lying to the player - if the player's level is always even with the monster's, there's never any actual progress on the player's part relative to the monster. If that's the case, why level up at all?
Unfortunately, 1 does tend to take a lot of work to balance and execute well.
I dislike 3 because it feels like lying to the player - if the player's level is always even with the monster's, there's never any actual progress on the player's part relative to the monster. If that's the case, why level up at all?
Unfortunately, 1 does tend to take a lot of work to balance and execute well.
My favored approach is to lean more towards gear-based progression rather then level-based, since it offers greater control over pacing.
Of course, there's nothing saying you can't mix and match advancement types In the same game
For example, take the early gameboy SaGa games, and specifically SaGa 3, in it, you had three main races, Human/Mutant, Monster and Robot, as well as two hybrid/transitionary races, Beastman and Cyborg. Humans and Mutants progressed more or less at 50% level and 50% gear, whereas Beastmen were more like 75% level 25% gear, and monsters were pretty much 100% level based. On the other end of the sprectrum, cyborgs were mostly gear based, and robots 100% gear based in advancement.
Of course, there's nothing saying you can't mix and match advancement types In the same game
For example, take the early gameboy SaGa games, and specifically SaGa 3, in it, you had three main races, Human/Mutant, Monster and Robot, as well as two hybrid/transitionary races, Beastman and Cyborg. Humans and Mutants progressed more or less at 50% level and 50% gear, whereas Beastmen were more like 75% level 25% gear, and monsters were pretty much 100% level based. On the other end of the sprectrum, cyborgs were mostly gear based, and robots 100% gear based in advancement.
Why don't we just take the RPG out of RPGs. Leveling up is a core concept to the genre and minimizing it removes a big part of the reason why RPG fans play them.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
What reason is that?
What is it, specifically, in detail, about levelling up that is enjoyable and creates fun?
Is there any way you can achieve those goals without ruining the game's difficulty curve?
What is it, specifically, in detail, about levelling up that is enjoyable and creates fun?
Is there any way you can achieve those goals without ruining the game's difficulty curve?
author=LockeZAppreciable power gains in characters you've invested time into, and a modular difficulty that guarantees completion of the game.
What reason is that?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Typically, I still believe difficulty should get harder as the game goes on. If it gets harder faster than the player gets better, the player will need to go out of their way to get better to progress. As you point out, that's a problem that a bare bones level-up system helps fix.
To some extent I'm okay with the player being able to say, "Oh God, this is too hard, isn't there some way I can get stronger?" But RPG difficulty isn't actually modular - it's just removable. In a game like FF4 with only a plain old bare-bones XP system, it's impossible for the player to ever say, "Ugh, this is boring, there's no strategy here, isn't there some way to make this harder?" (They can impose artificial challenges on themselves, but if the player has to create their own gameplay because they don't enjoy what the game gives them, you've failed as a game designer.)
I actually really like the way The World Ends With You handles this. You have the ability, at any time, in the main menu, to adjust your level. You can't raise it beyond what you've earned from XP, but you can lower it for easy fights and then raise it back up to normal when you get to a difficult fight. And for every level you lower it by, enemies have a 1% greater chance to drop their rare badges (which serve as the game's combat abilities, and are collectable). I think this is a pretty cool solution that lets people grind if they have trouble, lets people increase the difficulty if they want a challenge, and as a bonus even gives people a reason to want to increase the difficulty, thus subtly directing them towards making their gameplay as un-boring as possible.
To some extent I'm okay with the player being able to say, "Oh God, this is too hard, isn't there some way I can get stronger?" But RPG difficulty isn't actually modular - it's just removable. In a game like FF4 with only a plain old bare-bones XP system, it's impossible for the player to ever say, "Ugh, this is boring, there's no strategy here, isn't there some way to make this harder?" (They can impose artificial challenges on themselves, but if the player has to create their own gameplay because they don't enjoy what the game gives them, you've failed as a game designer.)
I actually really like the way The World Ends With You handles this. You have the ability, at any time, in the main menu, to adjust your level. You can't raise it beyond what you've earned from XP, but you can lower it for easy fights and then raise it back up to normal when you get to a difficult fight. And for every level you lower it by, enemies have a 1% greater chance to drop their rare badges (which serve as the game's combat abilities, and are collectable). I think this is a pretty cool solution that lets people grind if they have trouble, lets people increase the difficulty if they want a challenge, and as a bonus even gives people a reason to want to increase the difficulty, thus subtly directing them towards making their gameplay as un-boring as possible.
Man, that is the most scienc-y chart that I have ever seen :D
The trick with most RPGs, even with Level-Ups and enemies getting harder, the two curves aren't necessarily equal. Instead there are - or should be - spikes (like you said, bosses and really really hard dungeons) that require high levels of player planning, coordination and battle-turn execution, the sort of thing you learn after playing a game for 20 hours.
SCIENCE
After 20 hours, you know how the game's systems work and how best to use them, so with all other things being equal (yours and the enemy's avatar strength, number of HP, MP, STR, etc) the game will get easier for the player as it goes on - unless, of course, your game has a hard limit on how much player skill can affect the outcome. If they only have an Attack and Defense command, there's only so much they can learn.
The trick with most RPGs, even with Level-Ups and enemies getting harder, the two curves aren't necessarily equal. Instead there are - or should be - spikes (like you said, bosses and really really hard dungeons) that require high levels of player planning, coordination and battle-turn execution, the sort of thing you learn after playing a game for 20 hours.
SCIENCE
After 20 hours, you know how the game's systems work and how best to use them, so with all other things being equal (yours and the enemy's avatar strength, number of HP, MP, STR, etc) the game will get easier for the player as it goes on - unless, of course, your game has a hard limit on how much player skill can affect the outcome. If they only have an Attack and Defense command, there's only so much they can learn.
Between the all the graphs in here, I think we've managed to spoil every game ever made by man, aside from the dumb ones that actually get easier over time.
Also, I like your profile quote. BAM
Also, I like your profile quote. BAM
just read this article that Soli wrote about gameplay pacing.
Flat difficulty curves are bad and boring. It's like punishing players for making progress.
This scenario often plays itself out: taking into consideration the toughness of all the monsters, the value of the items to be found, the skills and equipment available to the player, you'll see that game designers have created experiences that get steadily harder and harder from the beginning of the game up to the very end.
Definition of the Difficulty Trap:
As the avatar gets better, the difficulty of the game is increasing at the same rate, so the player is effectively standing still from a gameplay/progression perspective.
Mistaking constant increase in difficulty for challenge is a common misconception.
In order to avoid the Trap, break up your game world so that the player has absolutely no idea how easy or how hard the next area is going to be. The value of a game that uses a modulating difficulty scale is that players have no expectation either good or bad about what awaits them around the next corner. Before, in the Trap, the player simply expects things to get worse - a major turnoff. Now they don't know what to expect, inciting their curiosity and driving them to explore further.
Follow up insanely difficult areas with simpler ones. Have times where the difficulty increases gradually and other times where it increases sharply. Even consider adding a difficult plateau period. This kind of game design will go a surprisingly long way to making your game more enjoyable.
This scenario often plays itself out: taking into consideration the toughness of all the monsters, the value of the items to be found, the skills and equipment available to the player, you'll see that game designers have created experiences that get steadily harder and harder from the beginning of the game up to the very end.
Definition of the Difficulty Trap:
As the avatar gets better, the difficulty of the game is increasing at the same rate, so the player is effectively standing still from a gameplay/progression perspective.
Mistaking constant increase in difficulty for challenge is a common misconception.
In order to avoid the Trap, break up your game world so that the player has absolutely no idea how easy or how hard the next area is going to be. The value of a game that uses a modulating difficulty scale is that players have no expectation either good or bad about what awaits them around the next corner. Before, in the Trap, the player simply expects things to get worse - a major turnoff. Now they don't know what to expect, inciting their curiosity and driving them to explore further.
Follow up insanely difficult areas with simpler ones. Have times where the difficulty increases gradually and other times where it increases sharply. Even consider adding a difficult plateau period. This kind of game design will go a surprisingly long way to making your game more enjoyable.
SInister
40
I absolutely hate, hate, hate grinding as much as the next person. Typically i'll stop a game altogether and wont return for months if i'm put into a position where you HAVE to grind in order to survive, much of the reason I never successfully finished a final fantasy game. I'm on the final boss on all of them. I like constant flow, much like how FF13 was or persona 4 which I am playing now.
To put in the best terms, grinding should be optional to appeal to both types of gamers. Obviously the start of a game should never be to difficult as you are still learning, but as the game progresses, it definitely should stay easy. I tend to put the player into positions where grinding is optional. Whereas it's a challenge to complete the stage, but it isn't impossible. However you can grind a little if you wish to make it easier on yourself. To simply be put into a situation where you HAVE to grind in order to survive the first level of a stage is infuriating to the maximum extent.
If you can't find a niche for it, just use level caps like ff13 did. In increments of the game you can only level up so much, until you defeat the boss. Then your level cap raises.
To put in the best terms, grinding should be optional to appeal to both types of gamers. Obviously the start of a game should never be to difficult as you are still learning, but as the game progresses, it definitely should stay easy. I tend to put the player into positions where grinding is optional. Whereas it's a challenge to complete the stage, but it isn't impossible. However you can grind a little if you wish to make it easier on yourself. To simply be put into a situation where you HAVE to grind in order to survive the first level of a stage is infuriating to the maximum extent.
If you can't find a niche for it, just use level caps like ff13 did. In increments of the game you can only level up so much, until you defeat the boss. Then your level cap raises.
A trick I've seen used to great effect in many games is:
The Degraded Boss thank you for the name TVTropes
A lot of games emphasize your personal growth (growth via avatar strength, player skill, or both) by bringing back enemies from earlier in the game - particularly a difficult enemy players had trouble with. This time around, players will *hopefully* have a lot less trouble, and this will show them how much better they are than when they started the game. The boss won't provide much challenge, but the player's experience makes them feel pride, growth, and power.
Examples:
Final Fantasy I: Elemental Lords (all of the main 4 plot bosses brought back and fought before the final boss)
Kirby Superstar: Arena Mode (tons of bosses from earlier in the game, fought back-to-back)
every Mega Man ever: Boss Rush (fight all the old bosses, but now you have every weapon)
---------------------------------------
P.S. An even better counterpoint is to have one of these degraded bosses, and then follow it up with a boss - preferably a plot-related boss - that rocks their balls and makes the player realize how helpless they are. You build up their hope, make them feel powerful, and then BAM, really hit home with the hopeless feeling.
(This isn't really a good idea for a fun or light-hearted game, but it's a great way to make the player feel weak and small, which you might be trying to do)
The Degraded Boss thank you for the name TVTropes
A lot of games emphasize your personal growth (growth via avatar strength, player skill, or both) by bringing back enemies from earlier in the game - particularly a difficult enemy players had trouble with. This time around, players will *hopefully* have a lot less trouble, and this will show them how much better they are than when they started the game. The boss won't provide much challenge, but the player's experience makes them feel pride, growth, and power.
Examples:
Final Fantasy I: Elemental Lords (all of the main 4 plot bosses brought back and fought before the final boss)
Kirby Superstar: Arena Mode (tons of bosses from earlier in the game, fought back-to-back)
every Mega Man ever: Boss Rush (fight all the old bosses, but now you have every weapon)
---------------------------------------
P.S. An even better counterpoint is to have one of these degraded bosses, and then follow it up with a boss - preferably a plot-related boss - that rocks their balls and makes the player realize how helpless they are. You build up their hope, make them feel powerful, and then BAM, really hit home with the hopeless feeling.
(This isn't really a good idea for a fun or light-hearted game, but it's a great way to make the player feel weak and small, which you might be trying to do)
