Topic: Is it a Good or Bad Thing That Games Have Gotten Easier?

As anybody who has been gaming for a long time could tell you, games have gotten a lot easier in the last few generations. So, I'm wondering what are other people's feelings on the topic?

For me it's a bit of a mixed bag on whether I think it is good or bad. While gaming difficulty was there in the early days in part due to the need to ensure you couldn't complete a game in 30 minutes, it also was, in the well crafted games of the time, balanced to reward those who put effort into getting good at a game. The satisfaction you gained when you managed to beat a game more than made up for any frustrations you may have had with it earlier and gave you a sense of achievement that is lacking from most games these days. I'll never forget beating something like Delta on the C64 just because of the sheer determination it took to do it (I say beat, but as with a lot of games from that time it looped back to the start when you finished it).

In the 16 bit era and when we first moved into the 32 bit era games remained pretty difficult for the most part, more powerful hardware meant that developers could play around with games difficulty for the most part and the experience would still have a decent run-time even on the easier games. Even most of the easier games from that time period still put most of today's games to shame in that department though. I feel like there was a good balance struck around this time between challenge and fun.

As games got bigger and more expensive though, game studios seemed to prefer the idea everyone saw all of their game rather than risk people quitting before reaching the end. Virtually every game released now I know the only reason I won't finish it is if I get bored. Dark Souls is a game people discuss these days due to it being hard, but it goes back to the old model that the difficulty is set to reward those who play it long enough to understand its mechanics. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm a big fan of the Soul's et al franchises, but every time I see someone bemoaning its difficulty I'm left thinking it isn't that hard - there is little punishment for dying in the game, you lose a little progress and maybe a few resources, and given the resources are infinite that isn't much of a problem.

For me, some types of games have been spoiled by their easification (I'm calling it as a word) - games regarding stealth are a biggie in this category (although I don't limit this problem to solely stealth games). The reason I say this is because pretty much every stealth/game including stealth game released now (and most shooters for that fact too) allow you to see enemy silhouettes through the wall. Mixing that with a lot of them already being 3rd person and therefore allowing you to have the unfair advantage of still being able to see the enemy despite hiding behind a wall removes a lot of the suspense that stealth games used to thrive on (I could also go on about the fact that most stealth games take you as hidden if 25% of your body is covered and enemies can't see you from 10ft away too, but I'll leave it as a note here).

On the flip side, in heavily story based games, such as RPGs, while I want the combat to be challenging and tactical, I also don't want to be taken out of the narrative through every encounter being on a razor's edge, so I'm generally OK with that type of game saving its harder moments for key battles. A really well crafted story I invested in can almost make me forget I've face-rolled through all the content in finishing the game.

Sometimes it is good to kick back and relax with a game, I get that, and it is also sometimes fun to play something where you feel completely overpowered, but I'm beginning to feel that way in most games I play these days. Also, to be clear, I think difficulty should be based on skill and not on having less health/enemies doing more damage (having an ultra hard difficulty that kills you in one hit instead of six, for instance, is not what I'm after to add difficulty). Are you happy with games in their current state, or do you think they've gone too soft on us for too long? I'm interested to hear what others think.

I think difficulty is in the eye of the player really. I find NES games that alot of younger gamers find hard like Mega Man games or Zelda games to be pretty easy, it just takes a different style of gaming playing.

Games now a days for the most part seem like they have no penalty for dieing, yeah you get a game over screen but is it truely a game over? Take GTA for example you die you lose a bit of your money, maybe a few weapons etc but it's not like you hae to start over completely. Now take Super Mario Bros on NES you die in 8-4 and even after so many tries it was back to the beginning (of course that's not counting the continue code). It made it so gamers of NES era had to learn a game, learn the patterns of creatures and the layout of the levels etc. Now it seems that a person can just brute force their way through a game.

Also I have noticed alot of hand holding in games this era as well.

Difficulty is something I've always been split on personally, but I do generally lean more towards accessibility. I want a game to be easy enough so someone can play it without too much hassle, but there should still be some challenge so it's not just a cruise. However, I don't want to spend hours upon hours trying to beat one section just so I can progress.

Games have gotten easier, to the point where a series (you know which) is marketed solely on how it'll curb stomp you. Whether or not that's good or bad is a question I have a hard time answering. I've been gaming for 17 out of the 21 years of my life, so sometimes I have trouble differentiating difficultly based on my experience vs. the general public. Difficulty is different based on genre, and I'm no expert at every one.

Games are meant to be fun, I agree, but fun is also relative to the player. Some enjoy hard games, some prefer easier stuff. This is where difficulty selection comes into play, but that's not always designed well.

I'm probably making this to be bigger than it is, so I'll stop rambling for now.

@KratosMD The problem for me is it has gone from virtually every game being a challenge to virtually every game being a walk in the park. You only need look at the success of the Dark Souls series to see there is still some call for a more challenging experience when it is crafted well.

The fun/frustration factor will differ between people and, for the most part, most people can still have fun while losing at a game. I mean, traditionally games have been about having fun more than winning, and when winning was desired you generally have to practice to get that result. Most games these days are completed with the inevitability of finishing watching a film. I'm playing devil's advocate here as I said, in some cases I can enjoy easier games and in certain circumstances they are preferable to harder ones if I look genre to genre. And, to be clear, this isn't about who's better than who, just more of a who is happy to play a harder game and fail rather than breeze through an easy one so I'd never use a 'git gud' comment, except for cases like this where I am saying I wouldn't use it

@DerMeister That is the question though, have games been made easier to accommodate a larger market? And if so is it ultimately a good move? Gaming in all forms has mainly been a hobbyist pursuit, one that has a niche audience and when more people are incorporated into a hobby it can dilute it to not satisfy anyone. While I'm not saying gaming has gone that far yet, it is clear that a lot of us console and computer gamers look at the mobile market with derision. At the same time companies who make games look at the mobile market and feel they can make far more money with less risk and shorter/cheaper development cycles. Aiming to appeal to the mass market can leave the original core market out in the cold and it can be argued that making games easier is one step towards that (we can also make other parallels like (pay to win) microtransactions, but that isn't what this topic is about). For me I'd be happy if there was a mix, but I'd estimate only about 5% of game releases these days are challenging and I think that is my problem with the situation.

@Tasuki Somehow missed your comment so edited this in, it's been a long day... I do feel there is a move towards people expecting to be given everything on a plate these days and that isn't always as appealing as it may sound. While I don't like to paint everyone with the same brush, a lot of the youth of today definitely seem to lack the patience of my generation and this shows through in lots of things, including gaming.

For me, it's about choice. As I'm also an Old Man™ I remember most games from the NES/Arcade era only having one difficulty level. That's it. Too easy or hard? Don't care.
I notice that most games these days have a whole range of difficulty levels, some locked behind completion, etc. Which can only be a good thing, right?
If you want to play on super easy mode and blast through it, it's your game, go for it.
Wanna torture yourself with the first level before you even get to grips with the controls? Your choice.
So I'm, no I don't think games have actually gotten easier as such, it is now possible to tailor your experience to your taste.

@Dichotomy Games of yesteryear were hard unintentionally by design, lack of available sprites, small teams, low experience, poor qa etc

I've replayed some games from the past, mainly the games from the Amstrad CPC, Amiga and Megadrive and loads of games are frustratingly solid! An enemy in a ridiculous place, instant death through no fault of your own, a crazy hard jump on the second level etc etc.

I also agree with @tasuki with the more polished games from the past (Nintendo and Sega first party games as examples), they were usually more complete from the games I mention above and although punishing to the uninitiated - were actually easy once you clicked with the mechanics and learnt the limited patterns of play.

As for dark souls, its not too hard. It uses death as a mechanic - as should the player. Loads of people would struggle to understand that as its not a modern gaming gaming trope suffice the "its too hard" comments on the message boards. I can pretty much guarantee those comments are not coming from any gamer over the age of 35 or any younger gamer with an ounce of common sense who grasps the concept.

One thing I will point out here; the souls series has seemingly hoarded the "difficult game" title from other equally rewarding and possibly tougher games in Rogue Legacy, Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox and classics such as Mario the lost levels and Rick Dangerous. I believe its become the standard bearer as the majority of comparable AAA releases are completed easily with the option of turning up the difficulty after you are done.

@CountFunkula78 The problem with difficulty levels in games is that most of them take a less health/more damage model. While this does require more careful gaming, it is the worst way of increasing difficulty.

@themcnoisy As I said in my opening, I think that the 16 bit/32 bit era was probably the right balance, and I agree that a lot of stuff in the 8bit era was wildly unbalanced. Having said that there were some masterfully balanced games even back then. I also agree that Dark Souls isn't the difficult game it is made out to be, it is just well balanced and the right level of challenge, but that in itself should say most games are too easy if you agree with that statement. I'm actually playing Nuclear Throne at the moment and that is another game that is well balanced, you will die lots, but each run you will learn a bit more and get better, indies are a decent place to still find challenge. Last thing, Rick Dangerous was the bad sort of hard, I remember finishing the sequel (including the 4th load on C64), but it was a trial and error game of the worst sort

I don't mind difficult games if the challenge is fair and the design is strong enough. Modern games have generally become more accessible and intuitive and less frustrating to play, which is a good thing. There should still be a degree of challenge and a feeling of progression though.

@themcnoisy It does seem that improvements in technology have largely eradicated the problems that caused a lot of games to be harder. In some games it felt like you were battling against them because of poor mechanics, technical issues, frustrating controls or simply mediocre design caused by the limitations of the day.

@Dichotomy
That is an excellent point, hadn't thought of it that way!

@Dichotomy I think the reduction of difficulty has more to do with technology than appealing to wider audiences, but there are times where the latter is done, plenty even. I've seen fighting games do it quite a bit, and some RPG titles as well. Sometimes it's done well, but there is a risk of dumbing it down and losing something in the process.

As for being good or bad, well.... I know I said I tend to favor accessibility, but I'm not for making games overly simple on a wide scale. You did say that gaming is more for the enthusiast, and many of the games we get excited for aren't usually in public conscience. I probably wouldn't be happy if games like Persona or Tekken got too easy and sacrificed challenge and depth as a result. I don't want or mean to sound like a "hardcore OG who been 'round for a while and don't wanna share my hobby to newbies" type, but well designed games helped make the hobby as good as it is. Some of that includes well made difficulty balancing. Should games go this route, I would likely be against it.

@themcnoisy Dude, my Dark Souls 10 years ago was Devil May Cry 3. Maybe not a standard bearer of difficulty, but it was challenging. And beating a boss with a SSStylish! combo was immensely satisfying.

I haven't really jumped into the "Soulsbourne" games, but I do wonder if they really are hard, or just puzzles where everybody just fails because you can't fit round pegs into square holes.

@Dichotomy Games may utilise the less health/more damage model but that's because its 'easier' to implement and much more appropriate to the games. In the past, games would be 'faster' to increase the difficulty or have a 'smaller bat' (pong/arkanoid) but that's not suitable for games with 'human' characters - faster would make the animations look weird and move like the keystone cops.

You can't throw in more enemies in most games as they are already at the limit - more would make the game run slower. High action areas are most likely to cause frame rate drops.

Its much easier to change the values of health/damage etc according to difficulty. For example Hard is 70% health, your damage is 0.8x and enemy damage is 1.2x. Its relatively easy to have a set of parameters like this for certain modes compared to having to write a whole new AI for each mode, add in lots more enemies (which makes the game slow or annoy those who play on easy as the game feels empty) etc. AI to a degree can also be changed - instead of the 'awareness' being say 10m its upped to 20m, instead of footsteps being heard or you being seen at a certain distance away, its now harder to approach. Aggression can also be affected by numerical values - instead of taking 2secs to become fully aware of your presence - going from alert (yellow) to fully aware (red) and changing how long it takes for them to return to 'normal' if you break line of sight/hide or even how much more they will pursue you. Other ways of changing difficulty is frequency of 'spawn' items like health and resources. Most of these can be seen in a game like Horizon: Zero Dawn.

Enemies may not be more numerous in Harder modes or have a completely new/different AI but changes to how quickly they become aware, how far away they can be alerted (the range of their vision,hearing etc) to your presence and how long they stay stay alerted for affect their behaviour anyway - coupled with the fewer resources and 'usual less health, more damage' it can make a game much more challenging.

Games are a lot more complex than they were many years ago.

Another factor is that games these days have more 'story' to them. Some people may want to play just for the story or that is much more important than overcoming a ridiculous challenge. They don't want to spend 20mins chipping away at an enemies health knowing that if they get hit once, they die and have to restart that encounter but want to find out where the story goes. Its not always about getting the 'high' score anymore or trying to get 'bragging' rights over your 'mates' in school playground. Nowadays, games are more about the journey, the story, the characters. For some they want to relax, like watching a movie - just a more interactive one. Some may want to have more of a challenge in that - hence we have more difficulty levels - but ultimately, games these days are more accessible for all and people can find the right balance between challenge and story.

Good topic and an interesting one. I grew up on the 80's games and they were too difficult for me as a child. I enjoyed them but had nowhere near the patience to persevere and I think that was a limiting factor for enjoyment.

Difficulty has changed over the last few years for a variety of reasons. The first is the use of Saves. Better and more periodic saves have meant that players can stagger play and replay. That wasn't really an option in most NES or even some early SNES era games. You played it in one go over and over unless you had cheat codes that allowed level select. This was a difficulty bar in and of itself.

Then, as mentioned, code could become more capable and things could be tweaked and difficulties catered for.

I would agree games are easier - I would say in the NES/SNES era, I didnt complete every game, I just couldnt. Now I expect to complete every game. Personally, I think this is a good thing and it is obviously a commercial choice on the whole. If I beat a game, I am more than likely to buy another one afterwards. Also, difficult games alienate players that dip in and out of gaming or don't have the time to commit. The demographics of gamers has changed, the majority are now of an age where they are of working age and have other committments. Understandlby companies want their game to be enjoyed by everyone.

Those gamers that game regularly understandbly want challenges and that is why games like Dark Souls are championed and are popular in those circles. Sometimes there is an air of snobbish about game difficulty which I think can be harmful but it is natural that someone who games regularly would want to be challanged in a way that someone who doesn't won't.

Good diificulty curves are invisible in my mind, you don't realise that things are getting incrementally more difficult because you are learning. I think mainstream games need to have good difficulty settings, or even gameplay modes that are not just less resources or make baddies bullet sponges but change the experience for the gamer.

@Rudy_Manchego The difference between games of yesteryear and today is that games nowadays have a more defined end, a story with a beginning, middle and end. A lot of the old games were the equivalent of Hoard Mode - just go on and on until you lose your lives with increasing difficulty each wave. The ONLY objective was to get your name on the scoreboard. Games with levels like Donkey Kong, just repeated themselves over and over and over again.

At most, games had a vague plot - often written in the manual - and that was the set-up for the game - like rescue Peach from Bowser, save the kingdom from a threat by platforming to the end of each level with increasing difficulty as you progressed, limited by lives. Most games didn't really tell a story and were the equivalent of 'tiddlywinks' - get them in the cup before repeating the same thing again from slightly further away - miss and its game over and start all over again. The whole point was to beat the high score and the reason to keep playing was to beat your previous or mates high score so you could brag about it in the school playground or see your initials immortalised on the Arcade cabinets....

Most games, well AAA games don't have 'scoring' systems or 'leaderboards'. The point of reaching the end is to experience the story. You don't get people bragging so much about beating the Last of Us on the most difficult seating but sharing the experience of the journey, the story. Its much more akin to watching a movie or reading a book these days than competing for bragging rights.

Difficulty settings are more in place for a variety of different gamers. Some may want to experience the story without being halted by a level/boss etc whilst others want more of a challenge, feel like they have accomplished something on that journey. Like I said for some they just want that journey and relax like watching a movie/reading a book whilst others want more of an adrenaline rush.

Games aren't necessarily easier - although they do now come with 'easy' modes but much more complex and deeper, offer much more and cater to a wider audience. Whilst a lot of us may have been gaming for many years, there are also a lot of people 'new' to gaming. Time also plays into it - some people don't want to spend there only hour trying to beat a certain boss over and over again but want to finish the mission and get to the next. Don't want to spend most of their time in loading screens, loading up the checkpoint.

Gaming has evolved into much more than 'just' a game. Its not always about beating the game so you have to buy another either as most games these days try to prolong the amount of time it spends in the drive with co-op/MP modes.

@BAMozzy Not sure I totally agree with some of your points. I'll admit early arcade games were just about scoreboards and lots of home games followed this but there were games with stories that developed over time. There were a plethora of quite difficult text adverntures that were all story based. On the NES and SNES there were some story based games like Zelda, Ninja Gaiden, Final Fantasty, Metal Gear Solid, Maniac Mansion, Super Metriod where there was more to it then just leader boards and high difficulty.

Now were those stories as elaborte or as emotionally hitting as The Last of Us? Obviously not, I mean TLOU is almost the current pinacle of narrative acheivments in gaming. I'd argue there are still tons of games where the story, despite having the power to tell it, are not much better than the NES or SNES days. There are also still games where the score is everything as opposed to storytelling. Did anyone play Resogun for the story?

I think the point is that now, on most AAA titles, almost any player who can use the controller scheme can finish a game. This was not the case in some previous generations. I'd argue that this is a good thing, I think a game should be accessible to everyone particulary, as discussed, storytelling has become a core component of some games. I also think, on the other side of the spectrum, games should cater for veterans who want to feel pushed and challenged. However this should feel natural, not just frustrating because now you have to kill impossible bad guys with less resources.

The existence of games like Bloodbourne, Dark Souls, Nioh etc. prove that challenging veteran players can be a selling point (as long as the difficulty is fair). I think games need to cater for both unless the difficulty is a unique selling point.

@mookysam It's not that I don't enjoy games, but it has gotten to the point where I can complete most games without struggling at any point. I might finish a game and think that was a really good story or such and such a bit was really cool, but I rarely get to the point where I finish a game and feel I actually was skillful with that feeling of satisfaction you get when you beat something because you mastered it. There seems to be an almost negative image of losing at a game now and most games have lost that edge where you come back to it to have 'just one more go' at beating that section or boss that obviously cheated against you, but when you do it you get a feeling that is better than completing 20 other games that lack that challenge.

@DerMeister The Souls games aren't that bad, they only have a reputation because most games today are easy in comparison. Most people who play badly at the game do so because they are used to running ahead and taking on 20 enemies at a time while mashing buttons. In Souls you try to draw enemies one or two at a time, play defensively and only attack when it won't leave you open. A lot is made of the dying mechanic and it isn't anywhere near as bad as some make it out to be - if you die you go back a bit and potentially lose any xp you haven't spent if you can't get back to pick it up, while every enemy between you and your death respawns. If you die again you lose that xp, but given the unlimited respawning enemies you can always get more.

@BAMozzy I'd counter the difficulty argument as if a game was designed from the ground up to be harder, then there would be no issue with making it easier as it is never going to take more computational resources to make a game easier. The problem you highlight is games are designed to be easy and given no room to be made harder in more interesting ways. One game that did difficulty well was Half-Life 2, the enemies actually got smarter as you upped the challenge, they'd work better together to pin you down and flank you. At that time I wondered how much we'd advance with AI, but unfortunately I haven't seen a game better that AI and, in most cases, it has gotten worse. I've spoken elsewhere about the negative impact the current infatuation with graphical fidelity can have on other aspects of a game and a creative scalable difficulty is one such place it impacts. As I said, I wouldn't want for every game to be hard, I just think the bias towards easy games is overwhelming now and it would be nice if a hard AAA game release wasn't an annual event.

@Rudy_Manchego Games could be overwhelmingly difficult in the 8-16 bit eras, not all of them, but yes the balance could be way off and having a game too hard could be as bad or worse than making it too easy. However, in the 16-32 bit era the difficulty levels were tweaked and experimented with until we started getting a stream of challenging, yet fair games. If Dark Souls had been released then it would have been seen as a well crafted action adventure game and there would be no real mention of the difficulty (in a way it was, it reminded me a lot of a game called Severance: Blade of Darkness). One last thing, companies don't want their games enjoyed by everyone, they want to target the game for the best profits, so if they calculate that developing better difficulty options would cost more than they'd expect in extra sales they won't bother (and of course they don't bother as they know even those who crave more of a challenge will still usually buy their game from lack of any other choice).

I think games are more finish-able than they've ever been, which is a good thing. I rarely finished games prior to the PS3 era, but now I try to complete everything I play — and am usually successful.

That's a good thing IMO.

@Dichotomy Completely, I think the fact that games like Dark Souls, Super Meat Boy market themselves, in a way, on being 'difficult' is an attempt to appeal to people who either remember when games were more difficult or are experienced enough to want more challenge. They are only difficult in comparison to other games on the market. Super Meat Boy, for example, is a really loving homage to some of the all time great platformers which were equally rock hard.

@get2sammyb do you think running this site helps with that?

I'm awful at finishing games but have recently started properly organising my collection and as a result I'm finding more of a focus to the games I do play and thus am ending up completing them more often.

Excellent OP by the way, @Dichotomy. I'm constantly torn between whether I want to play modern games on normal or hard difficulties. I like a challenge, but I also hate being bogged down by unfair AI and damage levels (ahem Uncharted..).

@roe Actually no, because I have less time to play these days. I first noticed with the PS3 that I was actually completing stuff whereas with PS2 and prior generations it was rare I finished anything.

It also helps that you can search for guides on the internet nowadays if you're having trouble, which contributes a lot to making games easier.