ceolia

silly

  • hernouns

psychological yuri enjoyer. sometimes i make music, draw, or write. i can speak english, 官话, and toki pona.

gay wife to @sapphicfettucine <3


casual interests
cooking, slightly messed up slice of life, linguistics

Cacklemancy
@Cacklemancy

Had a good discussion with @sylvie about the purpose and function of Difficulty in games and when I'm not so husked and barely conscious I might write some of those thoughts down here.


Cacklemancy
@Cacklemancy

Alright so, when I started talking with @sylvie about how difficulty can make you engage more deeply with a game and how it encourages you to solve problems in the game's system, my thoughts on how I gauge Difficulty really started to click into place in a more conscious way for me.

In platformers like Celeste or Sylvie Lime (Although many Sylvie games have this quality and you should play them to see!) the difficulty comes in mechanically and through level design. You have to figure out really precise or creative or technically difficult ways to complete a section, you die often, get to retry rapidly, and this entire process is both fun and it pushes a player to get better at the movement techs, think in new ways about movement in this space, and it feels extremely rewarding when they clear a stage.

I mostly write visual novels and text-heavy exploration games. Most people don't think of VNs as having any Difficulty to them because the mechanics are usually really simple, but if And Then, There Were None can have a difficulty level as a novel then games can too. If you've ever felt stressed out by a dialogue choice or agonized over doing a fight because of the character implications or pored over a wiki to try and understand soulsborne lore, that's a sign of difficulty too, isn't it? The narrative's hooked you just like those platformer mechanics and because of that, you think about it more deeply and feel driven to engage with it more seriously. I'd even argue that just like games teach you how to play them mechanically, they teach you how to read them too.

It's just not a thing I ever really thought about in these terms because these aren't the terms or frames we usually use to talk about narrative design.

I've got more thoughts on this, but I also really want to know:
How do you think of Difficulty in your games? How do you decide where that difficulty comes up, why you've added it, and what effect it has on the player?


gayanimegirl
@gayanimegirl

it was playing through seabed that revolutionized the way i think about... not just difficulty in games, i think, but interactivity in art as a whole.

seabed is a kinetic vn — it's completely linear, with very little in the way of choices. and yet, i firmly think of it as an extremely interactive game, and quite a difficult one at that! and this is due to the exact nature of its prose. the writing is unusally sparse, with the narration focusing heavily on seemingly inconsequential details while ignoring things you'd think are important, and there only rarely being any explicit indication of who said any given line of dialogue. as a result, while playing i feel like i must constantly pay an extreme amount of attention to everything that's said, because if i don't then it's very easy to lose track of even basic things as "who said what" or "how many people are in this scene"! and this experience goes perfectly with the game's story. it's clear that this was all intentional.

you often see people treat difficulty in games as if it's arbitrary, meaningless. xyz game should be easier because there's no reason for it to be hard, and so on. and maybe that's true for some games, but it's certainly not the case for all of them! this difficulty, this friction, is a work's way of communicating how it's intended to be interacted with. what does it say that game x is easier when i play in so-and-so way? what does it mean that, if i pay really close attention to seabed's writing, there's suddenly a ton of things going on in it? i think it's questions like these that we should be asking.

...also, speaking personally, i just like it more when a game expects something out of me, too. i want to have to meet it halfway! to do some work so that the experience can succeed! that's indicative of a trust that it has in me, that i want to be engaged and trust it in return. if a game's just easy in every way and rolls over before me, i end up feeling insulted! like, oh, you have this little faith in yourself? you can't even trust that your audience will want to reach out towards you? why should i care about what you have to say, then?

i don't want to spend time editing this post so hopefully it makes sense lol


ceolia
@ceolia

seabed has been stuck in my mind for so long precisely because of the choices i had to make during it despite ostensibly playing something linear. i could even see several different playstyles at the end of it. it can boil down mechanistically (when a player decides to read the tips section and in what order compared to the main game) or even the kind of mental approach the player takes on while playing.

i was surprised while watching playthroughs of the game because people were poring over every detail trying to solve things while i took to it like a dream, just going through the motions and finding out what happens next. but i remember very vividly when that i chose to let myself relax after initially trying to be vigilant with the mystery. and given that the game revolves around perception and reality, it just feels right for it to ask something of us. whether that's a meticulous eye for detail or a willingness to blur reality and fiction.

just... the idea of writing as design absolutely fascinates me. i really hope there's more releases like seabed. and that people bring themselves fully to them.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Cacklemancy's post:

completely agree!! usually, I make a distinction between "mechanical difficulty" (e.g. the usual kind of difficulty people talk about) and "informational difficulty" (e.g. not knowing where to go, what to do, etc). although people usually talk like only the first kind exists, I'd say the second one is much more varied and interesting, like you pointed out. not trying to toot my own horn but perhaps you will find this interesting: https://cohost.org/vinizinho/post/839116-mystery-oriented-gam

I have been struggling with this, for me it is very obvious that VN's are difficult and painful.
i almost want to not associate with them because they are so, ugh, but of course i recoil saying that because, technically, i mean the world would be less interesting.

so, sorry for dumping this stay with me i found something- it is the contrast between that experience and my experience with traditionally difficult games. holding dear being all like of course i can beat the game !, and it can continue existing in your head because [of feeding the excitement by learning so much while trying].. (or see Sylvie's level "bird emergency!")..

about anything technically being interesting, there is a difficulty because [truly new experiences have less to make associations and see implicitly and get excited].

well in VNs or also map games in my head it has continued being idealistic to actually write it all out and play around.
now i can make a case about in VN's there maybe is no implemented thing to accomplish and you just keep reading distractedly, and suffering in the case of difficulty. and yet counter examples like Magic Tower where you do need to draw a map or somesuch type difficulty to keep climbing and see things i honestly think will be beautiful, but okay even then i still havent.

well also, there is the world of taking apart pieces from games for relevance to your projects. like in my bias with a 2d platformer i feel like i want to trace out every piece i can identify 5 different ways, compared to VN or any drama i was like 'well nothing new here'- somehow just completely unimaginative for how it could be appreciable information.

we have the technicality, even then, you don't actually need to know personally what to do with it. it remains interesting even if just in cold fact.
i don't know why it would be cold. it's the same as just a new place for you? even if it so trailblazed by others to be exciting but you are still holding onto yourself somewhere else.

like there is no one interesting thing, there is no one way to play a game. you'd be more short for words trying to find something other then what is intended or established but yea. i would never give up on a problem because there is always technically a way.(technically impossible to run out) but here i apparently get really bad 'this isn't the place to find it' syndrome, probably as a result of still holding onto somewhere else as a eventual way. or it feels like somewhere else where the colour is somehow eclipsing other colour.

i want to laboriously associate the as intense paradigm i heard about Space Funeral. my understanding of its popularity is that it trailblazed having 'messy graphics' and still being wonderful. something about lowering the bar, but recently the creator tcatm said that actually fact is the graphics are all custom made, which is more difficult than the pretty standard ones.
maybe they meant messy structure and liked the graphics but should be same thing. maybe out of what that rpg maker community had set up a new structure could be harder to steal then new graphics. anyway i feel like its partially an inaccuracy that you can make a unique game and be a game dev. the what extent you only have x amount to personally express and be done as different from constantly mix matching games in general - no, they do overlap and you can be both.. but need both, is a subject that is easy to attack.

whether you follow and could play in the implications of all that i don't know. having written it all out, about what you were saying..
it should also be said the idea of playing a game past the point of interest as moving more into as 'pain' than 'difficult', which is a Sylvie idea but as a neat generalization.
so much to say from what you said but i probably have the path now.... i'm not sure difficulty as a forced tutorial is going to help, you are asking the player to disregard pain based on something new. even if one started with easy games with the idea to somehow enter in, i mean which easy games?? are we inevitably needing to ask the player to give up their love and their sense of self to play some of these games?
i mean no because they can technically do both, but??
how do you think of suffering in your games? how do you decide how long the pain should stay up, and what contrast in has with the player? either that or trust the player to be analytical. (....)

i always group it into three kinds: comprehension difficulty (understanding how things work, like learning boss attack-tells or deducing specific combat rules), strategic difficulty (piecing together all the individual things you know into a greater whole that'll work), and execution difficulty (how hard is it to do the inputs to do the thing once you know it). It's much more useful to categorize things like that, and you can graph games on a triangle with it! (Actually, the VN stuff you talked about is difficulty but it doesn't quite fall into any of those, maybe this needs to be expanded...)

in my last game Copy Kitty, it's moderately difficult in all 3 categories, about evenly-distributed, so you're given many different pathways to improvement. Certain levels and bosses were often deliberately tuned to requiring a specific one of those 3 categories though, to make sure you can't completely neglect one and run into problems combining it all later.

but, nowadays... i'm pretty tired of hard games after playing them my whole life! So for my current thing i'm seeing how good i can do making a game that still feels challenging and fun to execute but easy enough a little kid could do it after a few tries. Turns out, making exciting easy gameplay is actually really hard to do, but i think i'm doing alright! 😅

in reply to @gayanimegirl's post: