Survey concerning the level of difficulty in computer games

[Masuyo]

Hi folks,

 

I'm currently working on my masterthesis in GameDesign (regarding a concept of a dynamic adaption of difficulty) and I would really appreciate it, if you could give me your opinion on the following questions:

 

1) What must a perfect opponent be able to do? E.g. complex maneuver, variing his combat style etc.

 

2) What should be his behaviour?

 

3) How easy or hard would you like to win a combat?

 

4) How should the level of difficulty adapt? Should it be a sneaky adaption or a hard cut at some point in time?

 

5) Is realism in combat situations important to you?

 

6) How many times are you allowed to die at the same place before you lose the interest in the game?

 

7) Would you like to use combat strategies? Should your oppnents use them as well?

 

Thanks a lot for your help and feedback !!

 

Greetz,

Masuyo

[flamenx01]

1) varying his combat style making it very difficult for the player to predict the opponents next actions

2)Not sure what you mean by this question

3)Adaptable some days if I'm stressed I just like to fight easy opponents other times I like a challenge

4)Sneaky adaptation so the opponent levels with you I always hate in games when you hit a wall

5)No crazy is sometimes more fun

6) 3-5 times depends on how much I need to replay and how good the game is

7)Creating a distraction so team mates can flank them, leaning out of cover just enough so the enemy gives away there position with as little risk as possible to me, doing stupid stuff your opponent might not expect or be designed to respond to to catch them of guard. And yes opponents should use those tactics.

 

Hope this helps

Flamenx01 :thumbsup:

[JimboUK]

1. The perfect A.I would be indistinguishable from a human opponent.

2. See 1.

3. Difficulty should be adjustable so everybody who has paid for the game can enjoy it.

4. A even curve, sharp steps can be annoying.

5. Maybe. Does the game aim to be realistic? if so then yes, if not then why limit what can be done?

6. Varies, if the death is a result of cheapness on the developers part then once is enough to be annoying, otherwise maybe 3 or 4. Insta-deaths are never acceptable, nor are those you can't do anything about, Gothic 3's machine gun pigs spring to mind.

7. The A.I should have access to the same abilities as the player.

[Vagrant0]

Hi folks,

 

I'm currently working on my masterthesis in GameDesign (regarding a concept of a dynamic adaption of difficulty) and I would really appreciate it, if you could give me your opinion on the following questions:

 

1) What must a perfect opponent be able to do? E.g. complex maneuver, variing his combat style etc.

A perfect opponent should have all the advantages and disadvantages as the player. The fight should still be challenging and require experience and coordination to pull off complex moves by the player, but still be possible.

 

2) What should be his behaviour?

Behavior should be determined by the theme, style, and plot of the game. Having a difficult boss fight doesn't mean much if the plot holds up about as well as a pile of wet toilet paper.

 

3) How easy or hard would you like to win a combat?

Combat should use a fairly intuitive control scheme so that players can pick up the basics quickly, but take a reasonably long time to master, learn all the tricks, or get timings down. Darksouls got the second part right, but the control scheme is extremely clunky to the point where "how do you jump?" is a common question

 

4) How should the level of difficulty adapt? Should it be a sneaky adaption or a hard cut at some point in time?

The best means of adaptation is probably the Metroid-vania model, in that items or abilities gained in one area make you slightly stronger and give you access to a next area. While this does tend to make the game more linear (good for plot, bad for free-roam) some of this can be combated by adding diverging paths, and making these powerups more or less useful depending on playstyle. Having actual AI or opponent changes based on this (enemies in areas will become more resistant to magic if you are playing a magic based character) should be avoided however since this can lead to rather large balancing issues in addition to spending all the resources just on implementing such a system.

 

5) Is realism in combat situations important to you?

This probably becomes more dependent on the theme and style of the game than anything. The best example of this I can think of would be Saint's Row Three. The combat situations are ridiculous and over-the-top, but this sort of style works exceedingly well with the general style of the game and makes these situations still feel engaging. Trying to make a game too realistic, just to satisfy realism junkies, however can often be a thankless and expensive process due to how quickly it falls apart as soon as something non-realistic occurs either due to a game bug or mistake in design (weapons clipping through walls, bulletproof leaves, ect).

 

6) How many times are you allowed to die at the same place before you lose the interest in the game?

I would say that becomes quite strongly tied to the actual death mechanic of the game and how death in general is treated. It also becomes tied to the nature of these deaths. If the death penalty is particularly high, people tend to be less willing to explore or tolerate cases where instant death is frequent (parkor sections, chase scenes (often requiring parkor), enemies that 1-hit-kill regardless of anything, ect.). If the player has to sit through a lengthy cutscene, or go through several minutes of normal play before they reach that death point just because there is no checkpoint or similar, it can make things even more intolerable. If the act of dying ends up being a complete loss, then the only ones who will be playing your game are masochists. Dying often does not mean a game is more difficult, it just means that the game company couldn't be bothered to balance gameplay beyond just making the player die at the drop of a hat. If I am dying at the same spot repeatedly, it does not mean that the game is hard, it just means that the game isn't designed well enough to teach you how to get past that spot or to offer other alternatives.

 

7) Would you like to use combat strategies? Should your oppnents use them as well?

Some of the best games are ones where humanoid enemies are given very similar abilities as the player. But enemies should still stay to a grouping of move sets or abilities that is befitting the style of that enemy. Having an enemy change from a heavy melee set to heavy magic use set upon being hit with magic for example can become a balance issue as well as a mechanic to be exploited. In almost all cases, enemies who use a motif similar to the player, should also be as limited as the player regarding the usage of these skills (ammo counts, magic costs, movement speed penalties, skill cooldowns, ect) since ducking behind cover until they run out of things to shoot at you should be a perfectly valid strategy.

 

Thanks a lot for your help and feedback !!

 

Greetz,

Masuyo

[Masuyo]

Hi,

 

thanks a lot for your feedback! It did indeed help me ;)

 

Greetz,

Masuyo

[TheMastersSon]

Masuyo, hopefully of interest to you:

 

 

 

In these demos Barney is being rendered in real time (he's not pre-rendered). Pretty amazing imo.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TheMastersSon

[justwannaddl]

1) What must a perfect opponent be able to do? E.g. complex maneuver, variing his combat style etc.

A: The perfect opponent will always hold the player's interest.

 

2) What should be his behaviour?

A: Behavior should be based on the setting and the function of the character. Kratos does not belong in an E rated game. A mook should not be tougher than the mid-boss. The mid-boss should not be tougher than the boss.

 

3) How easy or hard would you like to win a combat?

A: As long as it is not a chore to defeat the opponent, it does not really matter what the difficulty is.

 

4) How should the level of difficulty adapt? Should it be a sneaky adaption or a hard cut at some point in time?

A: Gradual progression of difficulty with optional side quests to drastically more challenging areas is best.

 

5) Is realism in combat situations important to you?

A: No. Most of the finest games are not realistic. Just look at Mario.

 

6) How many times are you allowed to die at the same place before you lose the interest in the game?

A: The number of deaths does not matter as much as the time for completion. If I fail a thirty times in ten minutes before succeeding, it is far better than failing three times over the course of ten hours.

 

7) Would you like to use combat strategies? Should your oppnents use them as well?

A: Yes and yes.

[Vindekarr]

1: Perform conplex tactical maneuvers linking with other enemys. Enemy units should work as a COHESIVE UNIT, perhaps with a tier structure. They should be able to adapt to what they are facing. For exmaple if attacked from stealth, perhaps splitting into 2-3 man teams and searching, and then regrouping after contact is made. One AI should be the leader, kill it, and the group should lose some, but not all cohesion.

 

2: Fit it more to what the enemy is. If it's a human, it should act like a human, which is to say emotionally vulnerable(IE shock, terror) animals should be more simplistic and non-tactical, and aliens should be simply unpredictable or maybe a little random. Personally I think AI nirvana is when you've got an AI that reacts like a human would to what you're subjecting it too. If you're a monster crawling around, it's pitch black, and you've killed all but one, watching the one surviving enemy pissing himself in fear would be perfection.

 

3: As hard as you can possibly make it. I usually play on the hardest dificulty I can still win on.

 

4: Manually. I have always had a deep loathing for adaptive difficulties. They tend to randomly fluctuate, and tend to always be a little too low. My chosen combat style tends to confuse them

 

5: Depends on the context. In a Sci-fi, like Halo or Alien, no, in a fantasy game like Skyrim, no, in a game based on realism, like War Of The Roses? hell yes.

 

6: Doesn't effect my opinion of a game much. If the game's good, I can take however much frustration and error as I need to progress, IE Dark Souls.

 

7: I rarely run in without a stratergy and neither should the enemy. I like to perform recon, plan out in which order I'll target enemies, mark advantagous ground, and potential hazards, all before tipping the odds as much in my favour before opening fire. Whether that be a split second calculation in a heated firefight, or five minutes of careful recon in an open world game, I rely heavily on tactics and stratergy, I'd love to see enemies do the same. A good example is X-COM, where enemies perform recon, and act in a very believable manner(most of the time)