Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The Wrong Kind of Challenge: Why Demon’s Souls Represents Rudimentary Game Design

Based on the title of this article, it may be assumed by those reading that I would take the stance that Demon’s Souls is not a game worth playing. The reality is quite the contrary. More than anything else, Demon’s Souls is a game that ultimately challenges players to examine the notion of game difficulty, and asks us to consider several questions regarding the relationship between game design and game difficulty: What aspects of a game make it difficult? What is the difference between challenging and difficult? Is there a difference?

The answers to these questions, particularly if you agree that there is a difference, all eventually lead us to the ultimate consideration that Demon’s Souls invites gamers to consider:

How difficult is it to make a difficult game?

The answer that Demon’s Souls relates to that question is one that could not be understood without the existence of, and comparison to, another game of a different genre: Ninja Gaiden. With both games in mind, the answer becomes quite simple.

It is not difficult to make a difficult game, but it is challenging to make a challenging game.

Everyone agrees that this is a hard game...

In the case of the two games above, Demon’s Souls would be difficult; Ninja Gaiden would be challenging.

I realize that based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews for Demon’s Souls, my statement may get under the skin of the game’s fan base. However, it is important to note that nowhere have I stated that Demon’s Souls is a bad game. I have simply stated that it is much easier to make a game like Demon’s Souls than a game like Ninja Gaiden.

Think about it. Reconsider the questions I posed above. How hard is it to make a game difficult, and what tools do game designers have at their disposal to make this happen?

What is actually being asked with these questions is how easy is it for game designers to kill you in a game?

Very easy. At every step through every part of a game, the designer plays God. Their power is limitless, and what becomes possible and impossible in the game world is entirely in the designer’s control. The player, on the other hand, is the guinea pig. While some aspect of player choice may be perceived by the player, the reality is that those choices have already been predetermined by the designer.

Therefore, any possibility of player death within a game is entirely under the designer’s control, and making a game difficult simply means the designer makes it easier and more frequently possible to die. This accomplishment is rather easy, and the choices the designer has to make this happen is varied: Increase the damage dealt by the enemy. Decrease the player’s damage dealt to enemies. Make more enemies. Make more traps. Decrease the amount of checkpoints between saves. Take away checkpoints. Take away saves. Decrease the amount of healing items. Decrease health.

This list could go on even longer, but the general principle will always revolve around one central concept: the manipulation of numbers. In each of the examples given, the designer is able to increase or decrease a game’s difficulty simply by manipulating a set of numbers.

In the case of Demon’s Souls, and with many games of the early consoles, this tool is the backbone of the game’s concept and design, and in most cases, the system is praised for its risk/reward factor. While the sense of accomplishment may exist from completing such a game, the reality is that not much thought or skill is needed to create a game with this type of difficulty. In theory, any designer could create the most difficult game ever made simply by setting the numbers against the player unreasonably high, and dropping the numbers associated with the player unreasonably low. As a result, the player would deal little damage, but take a lot; the player would have very little health to fight with, but have to deal with fighting enemies who could absorb a lot of damage.

I’m certain that this game would be very hard to beat. I’m also certain that this game would get praised for how punishing it was.

With Demon’s Souls, this results in only one real tool that the player must utilize to complete the game: memory. The player must memorize where the enemies are, and slowly and progressively take them out one by one. This is rudimentary game design.

However, the days of rudimentary difficulty in game design have long passed, and superior forms of player manipulation have surfaced that favor challenge and complexity over punishing difficulty.

Examine the aspects that make Ninja Gaiden challenging and you notice that none of the design principles have anything to do with memory of enemy locations, excessive punishment of the player with a lack of checkpoints, or overwhelming damage of enemies. Yet nobody disagrees that Ninja Gaiden is one of the most challenging games ever made.

... but this game is actually challenging.

The reason why Ninja Gaiden achieves that dichotomy is that the game designer gives the player more tools than simple memory: skill and variety. In order to be successful, the player has many methods for taking out the enemies, and survival has nothing to do with memory, and everything to do with reflex, reaction time, and dynamic strategies of using the wide array of moves and combos available to the player.

Simply put, the game favors complexity as the catalyst for challenge, not number manipulation. As a result, Ninja Gaiden is only as challenging as the player’s lack of skills and reflexes. No battle will ever play out the same, even when the same battle is fought several times after death, because the game does not allow memory to become a factor.

Moreover, when the player dies, the game does not elongate itself by placing the player at the beginning of the level, instead using checkpoints to encourage the player to experiment with new techniques without worrying about unreasonable risk.

It is no secret that gameplay is unrealistic to the way the real world works. No matter how difficult a game is, it never truly reflects the impossible realities of the scenarios that we as gamers play out in our games. It will never be realistic to assume that any one, ordinary soldier could slaughter hundreds of equally skilled soldiers. Games will always favor the player (the protagonist), much in the same way that movies do. Otherwise they wouldn’t be very fun.

But as long as we strive to make the notion of game completion an actual accomplishment, the decision on whether or not a game should be difficult or challenging must be addressed.

Should game difficulty be designed with challenging complexity in mind, and not simple difficulty? Should game design favor player skill and dynamic gameplay over player memory and numbers manipulation?

We can thank Demon’s Souls for making that a question to ask.

3 comments:

  1. Honesty. It's the key to any good discussion, if more game reviews/discussions could just embrace what you have just done here, the industry would be taken a lot more seriously. While the delusion that games are better if they're "Hardcore" because you die a lot and you get really frustrated over the loss of progress, eventually leading to a greater sense of accomplishment, is fairly and disturbingly popular among fan bases I found it even more unsettling that it was so prevalent in the professional reviews of Demon's Souls. This game is fun, it has a very satisfying one on one combat system, but it's lack of a cohesive story, ineffective targeting and camera system, static level design, hopelessly stupid AI and surprising lack of variety or substance in it's much lauded online implementations and in just about every aspect of the game, can't be ignored. This game is average, it's perceived difficulty and length are artificial and hopefully this whole thing will blow over soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not played NG, but have played around 100 hours of DS. This is a really fascinating topic and I would like to see it better developed. I'm only getting a vague sense from what you've written so far. It would be helpful to find some other examples on both sides of the fence to broaden your argument.

    Also, I'd like to ad something I've noticed as I struggle through DS. That is my normal impulse to play a game as it comes, in the thematic way its designers intended gets thoroughly squashed when I feel like I'm being pointlessly punished for failure. See, normally, I approach a game as a piece of collaborative art. (Being a game designer/artist is probably a big factor here.) so I don't do Gamefaqs or exploit obvious AI pathfinding bugs and such. I try to experience the intended world that they have created. But with DS I just can't. I'm sorry, but my skill and time have limits. I LOVE the combat system, the depth of the weapon/armor system, the fantastic dark mood, and the blessedly absent "story" that most fantasy games think they have to shove down your throat. But because they spread the checkpoints out SO FAR, I find myself desperately searching for exploits, bugs and cheese. I'm on Gamefaqs all the time. And bosses are an excruciating exercise in nibbling from safety.

    I think this is something a lot of designers may not realize. The more time investment necessary the smaller the risk a player will be willing to take, leading to a through breaking of immersion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I know this has been around for a while, but I just noticed these comments. The only thing I'll say at the moment is that it's not about time investment necessary, it's about what kind of a challenge is on offer. A challenging but good game could take forever, just like Demon's Souls. The difference would be the type of challenge. DS is stuck in the 8-bit era of game design.

    ReplyDelete