More on difficulty levels

[ggambett]

(Not sure if the thread belongs here, but I think it applies to casual games...)

I've noticed a strange trend in Wild West Wendy... after I posted the first private beta here, you guys complained about it being too easy. I made the default harder. But then an A/B test with one of the first builds shown a strong advantage of the easier version! So I made the game easier again.

Anyway... the game has 3 difficulty levels : EASY, NORMAL and HARD. You select that with a radio button which is shown every time you start a new game; the default is NORMAL.

I pass some tracking data whenever people buy the game. Now, the weird thing is that a LOT of people seem to play the EASY mode ONLY - that is, even though NORMAL is the default, they don't even try it!

Until now, I thought people would play whatever was the default. Apparently this is not the case. And I think this says a lot about the psychology of the casual gamer - "make it EASY!"

[ggambett]

A different explanation is that people who stick with the default NORMAL don't end up buying the game! Scary... will have to setup a new A/B test...

[Nexic]

Too be honest when I first play a game I tend to choose easy - unless its a game I'm familiar with, in which case I usually try hard.

I think a lot of people will play oh higher skills levels, but most likely after they have purchased the game. Maybe they are just trying easy until they get used to it?

[svero]

Games have always been about challenge for me, but I've learned that in more casual gaming circles it's all about the play time and a certain zoning medetative quality. These sorts of players don't want to be challenged exactly. They just want to kill time. It's strange though because often the reviews are about how challenging the game is as a "like" -- so it's not entirely clear. I think perhaps its not a "do or die" challenge they're looking for but the level of thought or effort required from move to move. Like in Mahjongg for instance. Picking which tiles to remove can be a very simplistic thing or a pretty sophisticated thing depending on how good you are at the game. But you don't lose if you pick the wrong tiles.. at least not right away.

[James C. Smith]

I found that most "hard corre" Ricochet players (the people who download and play all sevemn thousand add-on levels) tend to play on easy mode.

[Anthony Flack]

I'm not surprised. If you're churning through the stages on easy mode, you will soon enough get through all 7000 levels. Which brings me to another problem.

Personally, I like a game that gives you a small number of devious and well-designed levels, and requires you to master them inside-out. The Sega Rally philosophy. I hate being overwhelmed by too much content, and I hate the feeling that success is just a matter of clocking up sufficient hours at the game.

But it seems a lot of people do prefer to have a game that doesn't challenge them too much; where they can advance without much hinderance.

The problem, of course, is - if you set up the game to be played like this, you're going to need a lot of levels...

[BongPig]

We've been experimenting with Mutant Storm's ( reflexive version ) difficulty over the last month or so, with pretty positive results.
Firstly we made all the enemies half speed and that saw an immediate upturn in sales. Not a huge amount but enough to make some difference. Now we've also halved the speed of the player ship and awaiting results. I have no doubt it'll help again.
My conclusion is, we should keep making the game easier as long as each change results in improved sales/conversion rate. Its something I dont want to do really, as the original is considered perfect in certain evil circles.... but we all know catering for the 5% who dig it *only* isnt a good way to make money!
So, we bite the bullet, make it slow and easy, and see how it goes.

As Anthony said, games with lots of levels, like MS, should be easy. Otherwise how will anybody see all the hard work thats been put in?

Crimsonland plays using the same methods as MS, but sells bucketloads more. This is a good thing. It shows us that the control system isnt the problem, its the game difficulty. Crimsonland plays ( initially ) at a much more relaxed pace. 10tons knew what they were doing thats for sure!

[Hamumu]

As a mutant storm fan who may some day in the great and distant future actually buy a copy... make sure you include "Hardcore" difficulty in the game still! No sense throwing it all away!

In fact, what you're doing is basically exactly what I did with Supreme. I took the original Dr. Lunatic and doubled the damage the player did, halved the damage that enemies did, and made all enemies move 3/4 speed. Made that the default difficulty, but then "Hard" is the original version. And Lunatic difficulty... is not recommended for anybody.

[Mike Boeh]

Any time I have made a game easier, sales have gone up. Any time I made it harder, sales have gone down. It would appear that people want to progress more than they want to be challenged.

[Nexic]

I think we should all just make the player completely invulnerable and be done with it - then we'll all be rich.

[Anthony Flack]

You joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if this worked.

Personally, I don't mind how much softy stuff goes into the easy mode. As long as I can put my well-balanced, challenging game in the hard mode, I'll happily softy up the easy mode to the point of ridiculousness.

But I'll also put some special little bonus stuff in the hard mode...

[tentons]

I think a lot of people don't want to have to repeat stuff, so they put it on easy to not have to play the same thing again to reach their previous point.

But the ideal solution isn't to make the games easy, it's to change the penalties. Instead of killing a player and making them restart, take away something they've earned or otherwise penalize them but let them keep going from that point. Gonna have to change the designs some rather than try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[James C. Smith]

I think we should all just make the player completely invulnerable and be done with it - then we'll all be rich.

Been there. Done that. I think it’s working.

the ideal solution isn't to make the games easy, it's to change the penalties. Instead of killing a player and making them restart, take away something they've earned or otherwise penalize them...

Or you can make a game that is still challenging to complete even if there is no risk of dieing or suffering any other penalty. Even when there is no risk of failure, it can still be an accomplishment to finish something. The “relaxed mode” is Big Kahuna Reef is very popular. There is no way to die or suffer any other form of penalty or setback. But it is still fun to finish the level and try for higher scores or faster times. But even the people who ignore the scores and times are still proud to complete something and excited to see what is next.

[tentons]

Or you can make a game that is still challenging to complete even if there is no risk of dieing or suffering any other penalty.
That would seem to be key, because good games are about exploring choices, and if you fear the consequences of taking risks, you're not going to explore much. So that might drive you into a repetitive rut which leads to boredom.

I think this is what "killed" classic adventure games--trying alternatives offered no reward, and it gets boring figuring out exactly and only what the designer wants you to do. This applies to more than adventure games, though. A lesson that's still relevant.