The threat of failure in games is a foundation that’s existed as long as the industry itself. Ever since the days of Space Invaders, Pac-Man, and more, the idea that you can ‘lose’ at a title is something that we’ve come to expect. But while this mechanic was originally conceived as a means to conclude sessions and ultimately encourage expenditure in arcades, the infamous ‘Game Over’ screen still exists in various guises in gaming today. The question is: isn’t it about time that we moved away from this archaic idea?
God of War: Ascension recently caused a stir behind-the-scenes due to its incredibly challenging Trial of Archimedes difficulty spike. The chapter – which sees you fight three waves of ruthless foes without checkpoints and very few health drops – took some writers up to five hours to complete. We were slightly luckier, enduring just two hours of curse-laden gameplay before we finally succeeded in the never-ending battle against Gorgons, harpies, and centaurs.
The game’s director, Todd Papy, has since confirmed on Twitter that the challenge will be softened in an upcoming patch. It’s unclear how the developer intends to lessen the difficulty, but additional health drops or checkpoints are all viable solutions. Alternatively, the studio could fundamentally adapt the design of the chapter, changing enemy placements or reducing the number of foes to make things more manageable.
However, much like the company’s decision to alter a controversial Trophy name in the game, the confirmation of the change has divided fans. Despite the difficulty, some purists are disappointed that the team is backing away from its original vision. Still, a quick Twitter search evidences just how tough the chapter is: “I’ve played through all of the God of War games,” wrote one fan. “And the Trial of Archimedes is hands down the most challenging moment I’ve played.” Adam Sessler even made a video on the topic.
But the discussion surrounding the punishing but perfectly beatable section raises an interesting question about gaming itself: should we even be dying anymore? Complaints like the ones surrounding the Trial of Archimedes were almost expected in previous generations, but the difficulty of games seems to have decreased in recent years. Focus testing – something that God of War developer Sony Santa Monica ironically pioneered – has ensured that most titles are perfectly balanced to be beaten these days. But with that in mind, is failure little more than a manifestation of bad design?
To some, the process of learning a game’s systems and how to master them is part of the appeal of interactive entertainment. Titles such as Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls have proven that there’s a market for extremely challenging experiences that demand skill, practice, and – to a degree – hard work to conquer. The reason for the success of those games is the payoff; the process may be maddening, but actually beating a seemingly impossible boss is a euphoric moment.
But it feels backwards that you should have to spend several hours of your leisure time building up the muscle memory to conquer a small section of a title’s campaign. Banging your head against the wall for hours on end seems less like entertainment and more like work, which is perhaps why cinematic experiences have started to thrive. Titles such as Uncharted, for example, are at their absolute worst when you’re staring at a ‘Game Over’ screen – and some reviews for the franchise’s most recent entry evidenced as much.
So, for many of us, are experiences like Heavy Rain the way forward? One of the selling points of Quantic Dream’s innovative but flawed PlayStation 3 epic was its ability to adapt the story should one of its main characters die. If you fall, the narrative and its outcome merely change to reflect this. There are no ‘Game Over’ screens or checkpoints in the traditional sense, just the promise of a different story for everyone that plays.
The format not only makes the game incredibly accessible, but also extremely tense. The threat of failure isn’t particularly prominent throughout the course of the campaign, but when it comes, you know that you only have one chance to get things right otherwise your mistakes could have serious repercussions on the rest of the cast and the storyline. For some, that’s more compelling than repeatedly replaying a challenging section in order to attain the payoff at the end.
But, as with most things, it all depends on context. The majority of games rely on the threat of failure in order to add any sort of challenge to their gameplay. But is it really an effective mechanic if it’s something that designers are actively attempting to ensure that we avoid? The aforementioned Trial of Archimedes may be an extreme example, but if many of us are reluctant to deal with the challenge and the developer itself is willing to adapt its original vision to serve that, then what is the purpose of death in the games at all? And where does it leave those players eager for a challenge and a workout of their skills?
At the end of the day, failure is a concept that’s so fundamentally ingrained into the industry as we know it that we can’t imagine that it will be going away anytime soon. But with development budgets rising, the importance of appealing to all types of players is becoming an increasingly difficult prospect for developers. We just hope that the industry settles upon the right balance.
Do you feel that developers need to explore new ways of adding fail states to their games? Do you enjoy the process of learning to master a title, or do you prefer to be taken on a rollercoaster ride? Let us know in the comments section and poll below.
Do you enjoy the challenge of difficult games? (31 votes)
- Yes, I love honing my skills like a ninja
- It depends if the challenge is fair
- I deal with it for the Trophies
- No, I want to feel empowered at all times
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 21
Very interesting article that brings up a lot of questions... Personally I usually play on normal difficulty - if I'm good at a game I'll play it again on hard or higher. The real problem is difficulty spikes - they're an absolute pain and the result of poor design decisions. They can ruin the pace of a game or even downright put a sour taste on it.
When people argue about games not being hard enough anymore, I say get lost. There's no reason for games not to include easy difficulties and hard difficulties, even crushing difficulties for the masochists out there. The more people playing and enjoying your game, the better. Give people the option - there's no reason not to.
Unless you have a REALLY fun game(Ie. Kirby), a good challenge is almost nessessary to make a really good game.
When I first play a game I like playing on it's default settings. Then if I enjoyed it enough to play it again I bump up the difficulty.
As for games like Heavy Rain that adapt the story? I think it's pretty freaking awesome.
Games like Mass Effect,Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead that give players some choice over how the story plays out are my favorite kinda games.
I find this a fascinating topic. Personally, I’ve grown to really enjoy these cinematic games that tend to take you for a ride. What’s the worst thing about Uncharted? Reaching a difficulty spike and spending hours staring at the ‘Game Over’ screen rather than watching the narrative unfold. Every time you die in Uncharted, it breaks the experience a little bit. I enjoy the gunplay, but I hate hitting a brick wall in the story.
I’m so bored of replaying sections over and over because I can’t get past a section. And I’m also tired of having to ‘learn’ how to play a game. I’ve always felt that if a game’s designed properly, it should be teaching you as you play. The idea of practicing a game’s mechanics baffles me; gaming is supposed to be escapism.
I think it depends on your favourite types of games, though. For me, the likes of Journey and Heavy Rain have been some of my favourites of the generation. Neither really have fail states. There’s no real challenge in the traditional sense, just discovery. It’s that aspect I enjoy most about games. But I can totally understand and appreciate why someone who enjoys a game such as Dark Souls or whatever feels the opposite way.
i like a game with a good challenge because if i can just plough through a game really easy then to me it isn't fun
I like playing through a game for the first time on it's highest difficulty setting, it's pretty awesome. On topic of game over screens, I don't mind them at all. Sure, they may break the sense of immersion for some, but i'm perfectly fine with them.
Great article Sammy; a fascinating read.
I don't believe that there is a one size fits all answer to your question. Like LDXD says, it really does depend on the game.
Personally I love cinematic games, Heavy Rain is one of my all time favourites, and I can see the value in it approach, but I don’t think story moulding dynamic would work for all games.
I play virtually all games on hard, because I like the slightly more challenging experience. Usually, anything above becomes so frustrating that it is no longer fun. There is a balance.
I remember getting stuck during one of the all-in brawls in Batman Arkham City for many hours, which had become so tedious that I decided that I would lower the difficult level back to normal only to discover that you can’t. I would have had to start a new game with a new difficult level. Arhh! I persevered and eventually got through, but to be honest it ruined the game for me. I grew to hate the combat and was glad to finally complete the game and finish. Those tough experiences can backfire.
One thing that I personally don’t enjoy are boss fights, which is where you often find the difficulty spike. I find them a very lazy mechanic in games. Basically you get to the end of a level in certain games and you know that there will be some big dude that you have to take down, which usually amounts to a lot of dodging and then hitting from behind or simiar. Repeat, repeat. There are so many more interesting ways to have a climatic end to a level. Not saying there should never be a boss fight, just that they are over used.
A little confession is that I have never finished Uncharted 2. I played it on hard but after many hours could not win the last boss fight. I have got close many times, but always die in the end. I refused to lower the difficulty level (why should I persevere though the whole game on hard which was very challenging, only to “cheat” on the last level). So the game is left unfinished. I always planned to go back to it, but then there always another game to play. Not finishing it one of my greatest gaming disappointments.
Games like Uncharted should let people to refill energy at the moment of death, by pressing square. And if player fails to push square , ask on the Game Over screen, if player wants to die or refill energy =)
@Gemuarto Square is my favourite button to push!
@get2sammyb - I see what you did there.
I'm not a big fan of dieing, but I don't want to play as an invincible god either. The PS 1 FF games did a great job of every major boss battle putting you on the brink of death but I don't recall actually dieing all that much. Of course in JRPGs you always have health items and tents and inns when things are at their bleakest.
What's more important than dieing or not is how much do I have to replay after the "Game Over" screen.
@Gemuarto Terrible idea.
I usually prefer my games to have have just enough challenge to keep things interesting, but that varies from game to game. I usually play on the hardest difficulty I find comfortable. The important thing is that games are balanced, the people who complain about games being "too easy" or "dumbed down" need to get of their high horse.
Bosses are fine as a concept when done right, although more often than not they just aren't. They're a good way of introducing interesting challenges and concepts to a game, but usually end up overpowered and/or cheap.
We need game overs, simply becuase they give developers a chance to top this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPQnhhUqtU
I thought you guys were referencing it in that picture caption, but then remembered the game over screen of RE games >_>
@Jaz007 nope, that idea is perfect.
But personally, I always play on hardest difficulty possible, because I like feeling of tension, when you can die at any moment =). And must think fast and act very carefully =). But peole are different, not everyone likes it. And developers sometimes make really bad design choices. When you always play on hardest difficulty possible, you always can spot those moments.
If a game bests me in a fair fight, I will concede to it. If a game is unfair or relies PURELY on chance, I get severely annoyed. Demon/Dark Souls is a HAAARD game, but it's all based on your reactions and ability to adapt, thus very rewarding when you finally find a particular way to vanquish a tough boss. Mario Party is a great example of something that relies on chance, and while it can be fun with friends, the game infuriates with its constantly random nature.
TLDR: I like being challenged, but when a game is unfair to me I get sick of it pretty quick.
Just because a game is easy doesn't make it not fun, if its fun to you, that's all that matters, easy or hard
Of course it should at least get hard, otherwise it's boring. I feel jipped if I don't die a few times
P.S. my gf's little sis got this screen all day today fighting Psycho Mantis. Snaaaaaaaake!!!
Aww, you made a poll response just for me...I feel all special now. /Trophy nut.
Seriously though, while I do tend to deal with it for Trophies, I do NOT enjoy it if it's done wrong. Finishing up my Plat in Eat Lead was PAINFUL due to the level design quite simply not working on the highest difficulty level. I've got Plat on every Uncharted, and let me tell you, Crushing on ANY of those is nowhere NEAR as bad as Eat Lead.
I agree with those calling out Demon's Souls as a game that's hard, but fair. I was doing quite well at it a few years ago, before I lost my save to a broken PS3 before the days of PS Plus save backups.
What's REALLY important about difficulty in games is that it feel fair and, just as importantly, balanced. I think the new Tomb Raider is a great game, but there are certain battles that feel grossly unfair...and they're not even the ones at the end of the game. Thus, it is an imbalanced experience.
The nature of the game is important, too. I do not feel ripped off when I beat a Zelda game without dying (I've beaten Wind Waker without ever even needing a potion) because there's so much more to the experience. But a total lack of challenge in a game that's all about combat could definitely get old.
another great TP
best "game over" (and the only one that isn't annoying) has to be from Daytona USA.... who could forget (sing it now) "game over...YEEEAHH!!"
I'm a bit late adding on to this, but for me, difficulty could mean a few things.
There are games that feel like they have forced difficulty where the game throws you into situations that either take luck, unreasonable timing, or poor game mechanics. Games like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are a perfect example of a perfect difficulty. The game is challenging, but you never feel cheated. If you died, it was completely your fault and you'll learn what you need to do to improve. It's rewarding and fun
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...