On Difficulty in Video Games...

10 years ago, I wrote an angry rant on ScrewAttack about gaming difficulty. To say it was poorly-received is an understatement. To say the backlash scarred me is an even bigger understatement. Yet I’ve been meaning to re-write that rant for years, being held back by life and my inability to say anything. Since the urge hasn’t dissipated, I guess it’s only fair to write it now.

I’m sure this is no surprise by now, but I’m not good at video games. I’m, honestly, quite terrible at them. Part of that’s because of my learning disability, and part is because I struggle with everything. And while my struggle with gaming varies, that struggling part remains consistent.

I mention this because gamers can be pretty gatekeeper-like. GamerGate, for example, was about keeping games out of the hands of women and “casuals”, despite what you may have heard. But long before that, video games fitting a specific challenge level had been floating around as an idea for decades. It was propagated when I was young, it flourished when I was a teenager, and it finally reached a head as an adult. Even now, 10 years later, the idea that “all games have to be hard” is one that persists. If anything, it’s gotten worse.

It’s always bothered me, too. Why does every video game need to be challenging? Video games aren’t a science, they don’t have to conform to one difficulty. Some games, like the Ninja Gaiden series, might revel in challenge, but others don’t. And there’s a spectrum to challenge in video games, with many varying depending on their objectives.

I know some of you aren’t convinced, and I get it: why would I play a game that isn’t testing me? Why wouldn’t I want to exert that effort? Isn’t half of the reward knowing I’ve persisted? Well, yes…but difficulty’s also subjective. What might be easy for you will probably be difficult for someone else. I should know, I find every video game challenging!

The complaint about every video game these days being “too easy” is based in a lie. There are games out there that are still really challenging. But the claim’s also based in a misunderstanding of older games. You know those classics that gamers always tout as being “incredibly hard”? Most were based on the video game arcade model: they were short, and they were designed to eat quarters. A good arcade game can’t be a cakewalk, it’d disguise its limitations, so it was forced to be difficult. Early console games, therefore, followed suit.

This approach doesn’t work anymore, as video games are big spectacles now. They have in-depth worlds filled with lore, so designing challenge around limitations is no longer feasible. But even if it were, would you want that? You can beat a classic video game in less than a half an hour, assuming you know what you’re doing. The same can’t be said now.

Besides, so many early video games don’t hold up anymore. Remember how I said that older games were short because of their technical limitations? A lot of those limitations also impede their playability now. The Legend of Zelda and Metroid, both ground-breaking in their heyday, have been called “virtually unplayable” because of how unfriendly they are to newcomers. Super Mario 64, one of the most-influential games of the 3D era, is touted as having a similar problem. We can debate this forever, but that doesn’t make the complaints disappear.

I’d much rather a game be “easy” and fun than hard and unenjoyable. So many difficult games push me to my limit and make it hard for me to enjoy them, hence I stop playing them once I beat them (if at all). Conversely, many breezy games, like Yoshi’s Story, I find myself routinely returning to, as their lack of challenge is what makes them welcoming. I know it varies from person-to-person, but for me this approach works!

I think gamers need to stop touting a “perfect difficulty”. I remember that term once being tossed out as a response to my rant, and I strongly disagree. I don’t think a “perfect difficulty” exists. It’s way too subjective, as everyone’s different. What works for one person may not work for another, and that’s okay.

Another claim that needs to be phased-out? “Holding the gamer’s hand.” This gets thrown around a lot now, and it’s misleading. For one, video games are more complex than they used to be, introducing mechanics that weren’t possible in the 80’s and early-90’s. And two, gamers are a bigger group than they used to be. When you factor in both points, it’s inevitable that more information would be needed for new games.

Finally, complaining that gamers “use cheat codes” and “online hints” to help beat modern games is hypocritical. This existed in The NES days too, let’s not kid ourselves! I remember the Game Genie, and how I’d play around with it to get different results. I also remember Nintendo Power, and how that’d give hints and tricks for games you couldn’t beat otherwise. Online might be more readily-available now, but don’t think you can get away with lying about the past!

If it sounds like I’m all-over the place, it’s because I want to be thorough. Yes, a game should be challenging to an extent. Yes, old games were notorious for being hard. But no, that doesn’t mean every game has to follow a uniform standard of difficulty. Insisting that they should is classic gatekeeping, and it makes you sound old. And no one wants that!