Archives for 2012.09.21

In truth, when players constantly face a void of challenge, they quickly disengage and lose interest. At the same time, if they constantly face an unbeatable challenge, they become discouraged or excessively frustrated. 

So what’s a good game designer supposed to do? If everything is doable, people are happy, then immediately bored. If everything is difficult, people are frustrated and quit.

The answer is remarkably simple:

Alternate between positive and negative experiences. 

The execution of this answer is devilishly difficult.

There’s an art to creating a satisfying experience. It has to be varied, full of positive, happy experiences and also constantly interspersed with new difficulties and challenges.

When I see new content designers sit down to work on a boss encounter, I regularly see them fall into the trap of the image to the left.

When they think “let’s make this a little more challenging”, they dramatically overdo it. The player is then like the poor, fat, little bike-rider – wondering why these gentle, rolling hills suddenly became burning mountains. 

Highly skilled players often react to these situations with renewed vigor. Like the red bike-rider, they forge on ahead until the challenge is overcome. Years of experience showed they can win.

I’m fairly confident that this type of development work is where the concept of Boss monsters came from. “Man, this game has started to drag on… we really need something here to mix it up.”  In fact, this type of logic is a great way to break-up a section of dungeon or raid trash that has gone on for too long. 

… but that’s not going far enough.

I’ve found that most designers come out the gate with one of two polarities – pro-player and anti-player minded. Pro-player designers want all mechanics easy to learn, sold by great visuals and showered with rewards. Anti-player designers want to exert their will and vision on the players, forcing them to jump through hoops, make difficult mental connections and make small, marginal gains at every turn.

As a result, pro-player designers tend to drift towards class, quest, event and item design while anti-player designers drift towards boss, dungeon design and marketing. (Just kidding, Marc)

Neither of these views is enough. In fact, inappropriately applied, both can cause massive harm to a game. 

If a pro-player designer gives out an item too strong too soon, they can ruin hundreds of hours of potentially rewarding quests. If an anti-player designer creates a challenging boss before players have the experience to beat it, players can quit the game entirely. 

Instead, the first major challenge as a designer is to learn how to temper your natural polarity with the opposite one. In truth – few people are completely pro or anti-player – but becoming aware of your bias helps inform your design decisions.

What’s the most satisfying type of pacing?

Unfortunately, the more people that play your game, the greater the variety of experiences, tolerances and fickleness that you have to handle. Calibrating the difficulty of your game is increasingly difficult as the audience size increases. 

If you’ve been around the video game scene for enough years now, this is why you frequently see people who will rave about a specific indie video game, while another person will play it and find it utterly dissatisfying. 

The game that entranced the first player put them in a situation where they were captivated by its challenges and opportunities. The same game could have been either too difficult or too easy for the second player.

A player’s stress level should not consistently increase or decrease while they are playing your game. It should be an unpredictable stream full of spikes and valleys, alternating between moments of difficulty, challenge and release. 

There’s a few major points to keep in mind. When a player first begins your game (or any new environment/experience) – they are immediately in a high stress state. Your first task is to release that high stress state with some simple challenges to reassure them before throwing more difficult tasks at them later.

Secondly, while the spikes and valleys are alternating, the difficulty and thus the stress level of the experience need to be generally increasing over time. This allows you to compensate for the player’s personal growth, skill and general comfort level as they have adapted to the game and environment. 

The next major point is that stress levels and difficulty are *not* a 1:1 relationship. In fact, the difficulty of your game can climb steeply while the player’s stress level is actually decreasing. 

The human mind is a tool of adaptation – it works harder the more “different” things are from its currently established baseline. Increased challenge levels incur increased stress. However, once it has adapted to a particular level of stress, the same stimulus that was incredibly painful before is now barely noticable. 

Clever use of severe, short difficulty spikes can actually result in decreased stress in the long-term – so long as the difficulty spikes can be overcome. 

The art of adjusting these peaks and valleys is known as Pacing. 

Next time, I’m going to talk about some common pacing problems and the challenges you face when detecting them.