But still, if you only play as good as you need to to survive and not you best, the system is manipulable and in failure.

Quote:

Original post by Splinter of Chaos But still, if you only play as good as you need to to survive and not you best, the system is manipulable and in failure.

That's not usually very easy to do. How do you play only well enough to survive in a situation where you need to run out of a door blazing and shoot down six bad guys? Let them shoot you in the leg a few times? Most players are going to give it their all. Besides, if you build your AI correctly (randomness helps - especially in time before AI difficulty update), the player will likely have no idea that your AI is stepping it up because of this and that.

Quote:

Original post by Splinter of Chaos But still, if you only play as good as you need to to survive and not you best, the system is manipulable and in failure.

I may have misunderstood your post, but are you saying that evolution-based DDA can still be manipulated? I disagree with that position.

Would you say that flOw is a failure because if you want, you can hang around in the shallow levels with weak enemies? I wouldn't. The whole point is to go deeper and see the sights and new challenges, at your own pace. There is no need to "manipulate" the system in order to make it easier, because you can enjoy the game at whatever difficulty you want! Why would you play only as well as you need to survive if you don't enjoy doing that?

Maybe you are used to games where you have to get through levels, and it might be to your advantage to play badly so that the impossible level coming up will be easier. Or maybe you are thinking of games where you get points (money or experience or whatever) for killing enemies, and it would be easier to get a lot of points if you purposely played badly. Obviously DDA doesn't work so well in those situations, but those situations are not the best design in the first place.

The idea of having annoyingly hard levels is inconsistent with DDA anyway, and getting points from killing enemies is unrealistic and encourages grinding, which is bad enough on its own. I think that the real reward from defeating enemies should be your own improved skill at the game, not stats, which works very well with an evolutionary DDA system. As you get better at playing, the enemies get better, which challenges you at your own pace and maximizes your learning. I think this would be a better system than the artificial "experience" and leveling in most RPGs, as I mentioned in this post.

Quote:

Original post by axcho The idea of having annoyingly hard levels is inconsistent with DDA anyway, and getting points from killing enemies is unrealistic and encourages grinding, which is bad enough on its own. I think that the real reward from defeating enemies should be your own improved skill at the game, not stats, which works very well with an evolutionary DDA system. As you get better at playing, the enemies get better, which challenges you at your own pace and maximizes your learning. I think this would be a better system than the artificial "experience" and leveling in most RPGs, as I mentioned in this post.

I couldn't agree with this more. I despise grinding and any similar sort of time sink.

Quote:

Original post by axcho Would you say that flOw is a failure because if you want, you can hang around in the shallow levels with weak enemies? I wouldn't. The whole point is to go deeper and see the sights and new challenges, at your own pace. There is no need to "manipulate" the system in order to make it easier, because you can enjoy the game at whatever difficulty you want! Why would you play only as well as you need to survive if you don't enjoy doing that?

The game Flow was designed against challenge and pro relaxation, other games are not. And how can you have a high score bourd when you're constantly raising and lowering players to give false representations of skill?

Quote:

Original post by axcho I think that the real reward from defeating enemies should be your own improved skill at the game, not stats, which works very well with an evolutionary DDA system. As you get better at playing, the enemies get better, which challenges you at your own pace and maximizes your learning. I think this would be a better system than the artificial "experience" and leveling in most RPGs, as I mentioned in this post.

There are already many games that use the player's human skills instead of artificial "experience" and leveling. First person shooters, action adventures, platformers. IE, non-RPG titles. These game characters have very little or no computerized stats.

A good RPG should be made to do exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. The game characters have skills, not the human player. The human player uses his brain to implement strategies, but everything else is left up to the character. You hold aim and press fire. The character uses reaction time and accuracy to put a bullet in the best place he can. You choose, he executes.

If you remove leveling from the RPG, you have an action-adventure with a good story. If you want to design or play an action adventure with a good story rather than an RPG, then do so. There's no reason to flush out RPGs, or to force the RPG sub-title onto every game made.

Ill usually do my playthru on easy, just to get all the storyline

but really i never go harder, mostly because, doubling the enemy and halfing your own stats i hardly call hard, just time consuming

Quote:

Original post by Dinner Ill usually do my playthru on easy, just to get all the storyline but really i never go harder, mostly because, doubling the enemy and halfing your own stats i hardly call hard, just time consuming

That's what I was referring to as AI-cheating. If the AI can not become more challenging while staying within the same rules the human player is limited by (no increase of stats, no 150% HP), they should just simply lose. Instead of taking longer to destroy, they should be harder to outsmart. Give your AI different engagement rules. Try different strategies to see what is most effective against the player in certain situations. A lower difficulty could just limit the number of strategies the AI can use. Meaning they aren't quite as witty.

For example, if the human is crouching down and firing from cover, a smart AI tactic might be to grenade him, or flank him from another entrance. Easier AI shouldn't be capable of coming up with such ideas, or at least not as quickly. The challenging AI doesn't need to take 50 bullets to hit the ground. And my suggestion is that they shouldn't need any more to fall than the easy guys. That sort of thing just makes the game frustrating. A head shot is a head shot. They always kill. So do most dead-aim chest shots. Armor is one option, and is staying within the game rules. But if your game is designed well, wearing really good armor should have some kind of drawback or weakness which could be exploited.

I just don't think it's necessary for the AI to be super beings to give the player a challenge. If you can make them nearly as witty as humans, while still staying as vulnerable as humans, and as afraid to die as real humans, the player should have a hell of a hard time and still not feel ripped off about it.

Quote:

Original post by Kest The challenging AI doesn't need to take 50 bullets to hit the ground. And my suggestion is that they shouldn't need any more to fall than the easy guys. That sort of thing just makes the game frustrating. A head shot is a head shot. They always kill. So do most dead-aim chest shots. Armor is one option, and is staying within the game rules. But if your game is designed well, wearing really good armor should have some kind of drawback or weakness which could be exploited. I just don't think it's necessary for the AI to be super beings to give the player a challenge. If you can make them nearly as witty as humans, while still staying as vulnerable as humans, and as afraid to die as real humans, the player should have a hell of a hard time and still not feel ripped off about it.

A slightly tangential but related issue is "upgrading NPC and its weaknesses". For instance, you're on the Nightmare Mode of Vampire Killer (before you played and beat it on Headache Mode). Now the zombies have special wrappings that make a head shot or random shooting period wasting bullets and time. On Headache mode, a good shot in the eyeball and the zombie has a head explosion. On Nightmare mode, the same tactic results in the zombie laughing at you and feasting on your flesh. So. What's a player to do? New tactics for new weaknesses. Obviously, the zombie are not as tightly wrapped as they were in Headache mode. So you take your flame gun/sword/lighter/heat vision and set them on fire. Not only does it slows the zombie down but burns 2 or 3 other zombies along with it.

So now not only can you make it "harder" but you refresh the gameplay in the process. So it'll be hard for anyone who doesn't realize that the old way of killing doesn't work.

hi all
my opinion is that a game gets difficult when it gets boring. someone mentioned warcraft 3; i started it on normal mode. i'm no RTS guru, so i've had problems with a few maps. i lost quite a few times, but i never lowered the difficulty - i just tried new tactics. but at some point, i couldn't complete the map. after a several tries, i realised that i got bored by the game, and i was too lazy to come up with something new.
what i'm trying to say is that if you make a game interesting enough, then difficulty is no problem. even if i'm a very bad RTS player, i can always check some strategy guides, and i will ENJOY difficult missions; on the other hand, if a game is boring, then not even the hardest mission on the hardest diffuculty level will satisfy me. maybe some fun cheat code wich turns the opponent into a giant cow, or something, but DEFINITELY not the 'easy' mode.
i've played Unreal (the original one) dozens of times; first in normal, then hard, then unreal... i liked it every time. was there any difference between the difficulty levels? no. in hard, it was fun to get the most out of myself. the easy mode was almost like shooting ducks, and that was fun too.
in the end, a game is not 'difficult' or 'easy', it is either enjoyable or not. if a game is enjoyable, then difficulty barely matters. if it's not, well, some say it is too easy (wich means boring), or too difficult (which means it doesn't worth the next try).
of course, i'm not talking about unbeatable games (when the enemy takes 50 bullets and you can only have 30). the real question is, can you make an interesting game?