::Design Studio 1::

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Critical Incident Analysis 3

Difficulty in games

Another issue raised after user tests were conducted on my Labyrinth prototype was that all the respondents deemed the game too difficult. Wikipedia (2006) defines difficulty level as the relative difficulty of completing a task or objective and when used in games, the term specifically refers to the ease or difficulty with which an average user may complete a game. As this was my first time designing a game, I wanted to find out what are the factors to consider when determining levels of difficulty in games.

There are 2 ways of incorporating varying difficulty levels in games. One is to prompt users to choose "easy", "medium", "hard" before beginning play and the other is to include many tasks or levels of varying difficulty within the same game. Based on my own research about games in general, gamers have complained that that there are no options allowing them to choose the level of difficulty in many games and that frustrates them. But with this comes the problem of determining the differences between what goes on in the easy level and the other levels. Some complained that in some games, the jump in difficulty between these two levels is too great. In contrast to that, some gamers prefer various levels of difficulty in the same game. The first level being the easiest, allows the player the opportunity to learn and get used to how it should be played; preparing them for what is expected in the levels to come. So, the question is; which approach is appropriate?

I have come to realise that multi levels are inappropriate for certain types of games. For example, you would not find multi levels in a board game such as chess and it will work better as a single levelled game. I tried to determine whether Labyrinth would work better as a single level or multi level game. If it was single levelled, how difficult should the game be? Difficulty in games can be a big issue today and if a game is too hard, then it makes it impossible for the player to beat. But if a game is too easy, it lacks challenge; something which helps to keep the player's interest in the game.

For low-fidelity prototype of Labyrinth, it was designed as a single level game and I didn't want the players to find it too easy. The thoughts that ran through my head were "if it is too easy, the player will finish the game too soon". That was why I chose a particular maze design which I assumed was challenging enough to keep the player's interest but as I have mentioned earlier, it turned out to be too difficult for them. Gamers have an enormous variety of skill levels and therefore, it is extremely difficult to judge an average skill level of all gamers to set the standards of the game. As Adams (2005) highlighted, the player should not be viewed as your adversary but your audience whom you are trying to entertain and provide enjoyment to. So, even if the player was to finish the game in a short time frame, he can always play the game again or play it in a harder setting. But that is if the option was given to him in the first place. Can Labyrinth still work as a single level game?

Maybe it would be better to have multi levels in Labyrinth. Multi-levels are able to make my game richer and give it more lasting value, while not overwhelming the player with too many things at once and provide different kinds of game play in the same game (Adams, 2006). Adams (2006) also mentioned that "to make a multi-level game, the decisions the player makes, and the successes or failures that she has in each mode must have an effect on one or more of the other modes".

To determine which approaches are appropriate for Labyrinth comes with more research and user tests. And if I was given the chance to develop Labyrinth even further or a new game in the future, I would definitely keep the issues I have highlighted in this analysis in mind.

References
Adams, E. 2005. Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! VI. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050603/adams_01.shtml (accessed May 29th 2006)

Adams, E. 2006. Multi-level gameplay. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060130/adams_01.shtml (accessed May 29th 2006)

Wikipedia. 2006. Difficulty level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difficulty_level
http://forums.gamemaker.nl/lofiversion/index.php/t106270.html (accessed May 29th 2006)

# posted by juzagirl @ 11:16 PM

Comments:

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

unit links

useful transits

archives




		Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Critical Incident Analysis 3 Difficulty in games Another issue raised after user tests were conducted on my Labyrinth prototype was that all the respondents deemed the game too difficult. Wikipedia (2006) defines difficulty level as the relative difficulty of completing a task or objective and when used in games, the term specifically refers to the ease or difficulty with which an average user may complete a game. As this was my first time designing a game, I wanted to find out what are the factors to consider when determining levels of difficulty in games. There are 2 ways of incorporating varying difficulty levels in games. One is to prompt users to choose "easy", "medium", "hard" before beginning play and the other is to include many tasks or levels of varying difficulty within the same game. Based on my own research about games in general, gamers have complained that that there are no options allowing them to choose the level of difficulty in many games and that frustrates them. But with this comes the problem of determining the differences between what goes on in the easy level and the other levels. Some complained that in some games, the jump in difficulty between these two levels is too great. In contrast to that, some gamers prefer various levels of difficulty in the same game. The first level being the easiest, allows the player the opportunity to learn and get used to how it should be played; preparing them for what is expected in the levels to come. So, the question is; which approach is appropriate? I have come to realise that multi levels are inappropriate for certain types of games. For example, you would not find multi levels in a board game such as chess and it will work better as a single levelled game. I tried to determine whether Labyrinth would work better as a single level or multi level game. If it was single levelled, how difficult should the game be? Difficulty in games can be a big issue today and if a game is too hard, then it makes it impossible for the player to beat. But if a game is too easy, it lacks challenge; something which helps to keep the player's interest in the game. For low-fidelity prototype of Labyrinth, it was designed as a single level game and I didn't want the players to find it too easy. The thoughts that ran through my head were "if it is too easy, the player will finish the game too soon". That was why I chose a particular maze design which I assumed was challenging enough to keep the player's interest but as I have mentioned earlier, it turned out to be too difficult for them. Gamers have an enormous variety of skill levels and therefore, it is extremely difficult to judge an average skill level of all gamers to set the standards of the game. As Adams (2005) highlighted, the player should not be viewed as your adversary but your audience whom you are trying to entertain and provide enjoyment to. So, even if the player was to finish the game in a short time frame, he can always play the game again or play it in a harder setting. But that is if the option was given to him in the first place. Can Labyrinth still work as a single level game? Maybe it would be better to have multi levels in Labyrinth. Multi-levels are able to make my game richer and give it more lasting value, while not overwhelming the player with too many things at once and provide different kinds of game play in the same game (Adams, 2006). Adams (2006) also mentioned that "to make a multi-level game, the decisions the player makes, and the successes or failures that she has in each mode must have an effect on one or more of the other modes". To determine which approaches are appropriate for Labyrinth comes with more research and user tests. And if I was given the chance to develop Labyrinth even further or a new game in the future, I would definitely keep the issues I have highlighted in this analysis in mind. References Adams, E. 2005. Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! VI. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050603/adams_01.shtml (accessed May 29th 2006) Adams, E. 2006. Multi-level gameplay. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060130/adams_01.shtml (accessed May 29th 2006) Wikipedia. 2006. Difficulty level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difficulty_level http://forums.gamemaker.nl/lofiversion/index.php/t106270.html (accessed May 29th 2006) # posted by juzagirl @ 11:16 PM Comments: Post a Comment << Home
unit links KIB210 OLT Jane Turner - Interaction Jane Turner - Lecture 8 Jane Turner - Lecture 9 Jane Turner - Class notes useful transits Jens Jensen - Interactivity Fundamentals of Interactivity Writing a critique Jonas Lowgren - Sketching Interaction Design How to create a clear project plan Prototyping Usability methods A Theory of Fun for Game Design" - What Games Aren't Flash kit Ljudo.com - Sound effects database Sounddogs - Sound effects database Critical Incident Technique Analysis Gamasutra archives March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006