There was a time when gaming knew nothing of difficulty settings. Games came with but one: relentless. Defeating tough levels had but a single reward: the promise that your next one would be even worse. Early Atari and Nintendo titles such as Pac-Man and Donkey Kong gave no quarter; in fact they took many (quarters, that is). As arcade machines they were designed this way to minimize the time each player spent on a game, thus making sure kids kept pumping paper route money into the slots in an addictive quest to get their initials at the top of the screen.
Game difficulty has walked a thin tightrope since arcades reigned in the late seventies. Companies knew how precarious these settings were, and what impact they could have on success or failure of their industry: “…if a game appealed to the mass of players who drove the arcade industry’s profits, the hardcore gamers who made up the base and spent tons of time in arcades mastering them would move on quickly, spending far less in the process. If however, a game was extremely difficult, casual gamers were put off. This dilemma would plague the industry for years.” - viaThe Verge.
Anyone brought up solely on modern console games may not understand just how punishing arcade games could be. It was in the best interests of owners to have players get a “Game Over” screen as soon as possible, and to either pump another quarter in, or let someone else try. Average players lasted mere minutes. Prodigies could make a good run stretch out longer, drawing a crowd of onlookers who wanted to see how long he/she lasted as the stakes were raised.
When home consoles first arrived, many arcade titles made the jump to living rooms, bringing with them their legendary difficulty. Obsessive attempts to defeat Machiavellian programming became the flashpoint for arguments between kids and parents, with a battle cry of “Come on, Mom…just one more level!”. I recall an afternoon playing Megaman with my brother-in-law, in my Mom’s basement, of all places (we were both in our twenties at the time). We spent eight hours fighting the likes of Bubble Man and Heat Man, earning us blackened thumbnails and pupils that are still dilated. But oh, the glory of victory was sooooo sweet.
As console sales exploded in the 1990s, and arcades fell into decline, games with difficulty settings began to appear. Once games found a permanent place in homes, developers knew that little Johnny’s kid sister and parents might be giving them a try. Creating games with varying levels of accessibility became a priority. In many ways the economic model was inverted. Companies didn’t want their games ending up in pawn shops and yard sales because of brutalizing difficulty; they wanted them to remain a fixture in each player’s collection.
Early models of scaling difficulty were simple: combat games reduced the damage taken from enemies, and increased the damage inflicted by players. Racing games would make opponents go slower, allowing kids to lap them and feel like Mario Andretti. It is a model which persists in modern racing games, using “rubberbanding” to create an illusion that each race is tight, while snapping the pack back together if either A.I. or player get too far ahead or behind.
Developers use each new tech cycle to push the envelope, coming up with new ways to manipulate A.I. so that changes in difficulty can be more subtle. In older games, such changes were often too extreme, leading to a kind of Goldilocks syndrome where gameplay was either too tough or too easy. Bridging difficulty settings in more fluid ways remains a challenge to developers.
Although it had been a staple of PC gaming for some time, online gaming took off on consoles during the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation. Top players understood that game programming wasn’t enough to test their skills; they needed to go up against other human opponents. PvP as a subculture was born, and for many of these players, it remains the only true way to play. Unfortunately, one of the worst kept secrets in the industry is that developers have not figured out how to create truly balanced online matches. Most developers try creating algorithms to match players, but the simple fact is online PvP gaming is one of the only competitive activities that pits world class professional players against beer-league amateurs. No sport in the world does this. If the #1 MLG (insert game name here) champion sits down on his or her sofa for an online game, it’s very likely that one or two participants on the other team are going to be extremely outclassed. As long as games simply pick randomly from massive pools of players, this problem will exist.
Is it something that can be solved easily? Doubful. In an age of instant gratification, nobody wants to wait more than a few seconds for an online match. Any system that filters players with specific filters would also limit the number of suitable opponents, meaning longer waits for a good match. There are just so many intangibles that creating a perfect system to do this could prove impossible with today’s technology. When I first started online gaming I belonged to a group of mostly older adult players. We played a lot of private games of Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas. I remember Rainbow games of 8 vs 8 that were so perfectly balanced that victory was only determined at the last minute most times. When teams were imbalanced, we just shuffled the deck ourselves.
Not everyone is meant to enjoy multiplayer games. I used to play with a guy who would absolutely lose it when we got thumped online. He often blamed our bad showing on everything from lag to exploits; everything, that is, except the fact that maybe other players were just better. So again, we come back to the question of how to resolve this problem. Games which offer good support classes presents an ideal compromise. Ghost Recon Future Soldier pulled this off surprisingly well. Sniper classes didn’t even have to fire a shot to do well on the scoreboard, by providing intel on enemy movements (something Battlefield 4 did as well). Engineer classes provided jammers to counter intel. Again, you didn’t have to be good with guns to participate in the team effort. Online shooters need more of this type of game, in my opinion.
But what about players who relish a meaty solo experience and don’t wish to be reminded they aren’t quite as twitchy as everyone else? Bethesda introduced scaling enemies with Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, ensuring that no one would ever become too overpowered, yet still stand a chance against most enemies at any point. They also included a difficulty slider, which on its highest setting allows enemies to do 6 times damage against you, and your damage is reduced to about one-sixth of base total. Scaling enemies had mixed reactions from players, and some felt this eroded the sense of true progress being made. Later games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim used scaling in tiers, by area, which proved more effective.Fallout 4, which releases this November, promises to deliver an even more dynamic game world.
One of the most important events in the evolution of gaming difficulty came in 2009 when From Software released Demon’s Souls, a dark fantasy RPG masterpiece that reacquainted players with tension and a feeling of dread in each step they took forward. The Japanese developer filled a niche by creating a game experience hearkening back to days when adjustable difficulty was not an option. They reminded us that rewarding game experiences make players use their minds and not just reflexes. Atmosphere and environment added to the risk/reward system masterfully, upping the stakes with each enemy defeated. “Souls”, serving as both XP and currency, could be lost upon death, offering players one chance to return to where they fell and reclaim them. A second death before reaching your souls meant permanent loss. Players lapped this punishment up, and the franchise has only increased in popularity, proving that gamers don’t necessarily wish to have an easy route through games.
Demon’s Souls andDark Souls, which followed in 2011, helped evolve difficulty models by stacking odds against players, yet giving them crafting tools and subtle hints leading to hidden shortcuts and useful weapons. A player’s creative imagination and curiosity became necessary tools for survival in the Souls’ world. Those who explored and dissected the environment could unearth hidden routes, items, and weapons allowing them to reach successive points of progress. Mobs which seemed unbeatable at first were shredded after you came back armed with more health and an upgraded sword. Like old Charles Atlas ads on comics in the 70’s, you could always return to deal with the bully who kicked sand in your face. And man, did it feel good.
Despite how brilliant the model is in Souls’ games, veteran players still bemoan the fact that over multiple playthroughs gameplay becomes predictable due to enemy spawn points never changing. Community discussions have often suggested patrol patterns rather than static positions, or A.I. that changes movesets on a random basis.Dark Souls 2:Scholar of the First Sinadded new enemy placement and adding black phantoms toNew Game Plus. It provides some variety to long time players seeking even more punishment. Many in the Souls’ community are anxiously awaitingDark Souls 3to see if From Software pushes the A.I. envelope in more new directions.
Modern consoles present new possibilities for A.I. behavior and difficulty scaling. Both PS4 and Xbox One claim to incorporate “the cloud” into games, allowing developers to tap into its potential when developing games. Microsoft released Forza 5, its flagship racing game, on Xbox One at launch, claiming Drivatars represented a breakthrough in single player A.I. Drivatars allowed A.I. to mimic driving behavior and tendencies of people on your friends list, representing them in-game even while they were offline. My single player race lobbies became populated by names of friends, and the longer everyone played the more you could see them evolving. One friend was a technical racer, maintaining clean lines and patiently waiting for others to make a mistake before executing an overtake. His Drivatar behaved the same way, in complete contrast to another friend who liked to bump and rub his way through a pack. Races became much more dynamic than in previous games, where a line of programmed opponents rarely strayed from a conga line forming behind me. Even Drivatars have flaws though, and can behave in overly aggressive ways, which sometimes spoil a good race. But the system certainly has potential, and the upcoming Forza 6 game is introducing options to turn down aggression on Drivatars.
The task of creating A.I. which matches up with countless different levels of human skill is a tall order. Developers must account for thousands of intangibles, and even then, probably only cover a minimum of factors involved. New gaming consoles which are networked with other players and near limitless processing power in their respective “clouds” offer potential to open new frontiers of game experience. Now in their second year of release, PS4 and Xbox One should see a wealth of new titles as developers become comfortable and familiar with new tech. The next few years should see even further advances as they strive to deliver games which offer challenges, yet remain accessible to casual players as well.
