From: marms@python.cs.unm.edu (Mike Arms)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video,alt.games.lynx
Subject: Re: Lynx vs. Game Gear?
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:20:39 GMT
Reply-To: sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu (Mike Arms)
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories

denton@ssd.comm.mot.com (Perry Denton) writes:
>When they put in EASY NORMAL DIFFICULT level choices, people invariably
>start out at simple, finish the game, and post to the net about how
>easy the game is.  (eg. Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, Contra III, etc).

If the default difficulty level is Normal, how does it hurt you if 
less skilled players play on Easy?  Let me tell you, as easy as
[SNES] Turtles IV is, if my 6 year old boy finishes the game on
the Easy level, he will have just cause to celebrate.  That game,
even on Easy, is by no means easy for him.  But it is pretty much 
right at his skill level on Easy, so he can make it a long way into
the game before losing his last life.  Each time he makes it a little 
further.  The Normal and Hard difficulty settings are just too hard
for him and they lessen his enjoyment while raising his frustration
and anger levels.  That's not something that a 6 year old needs. 
They need a challenge appropriate to their skill level (as do we all).

If the people you are referring to are skilled players that purposely 
play on Easy and then have the audacity to complain that it was too 
simple, they are fools or braggarts (probably both).  Did they make any
comment as to the level of challenge on the regular or harder settings?
If not, what irritated you about their comment.  Obviously they are
playing below their challenge level.


>You can't please everybody, I guess.

My point, especially for Lynx games where this thread began, is that
game designers can please more players by making games accessible
to a wider range of skill levels through use of enough difficulty
levels and/or via user config.  (see my previous couple of posting for 
long-winded diatribes :-)


>But the difficulty level choices should always be available for sports
>games, which are the most replayable games.  If I beat it at easy, I
>look forward to playing it on a harder level.

My point is that games of any genre are more replayable AND more 
accessible when they have enough difficulty level choices and/or 
user config.  This is not something limited in usefulness to sports
games.  Looks at it another way, if you maintain that it is appropriate 
for sports games, why is is not appropriate for shooters, fighters,
beat 'em ups, or platform games?


>On side scrolling games, perhaps they should be more like Contra III,
>where if you play a harder level, there are actually different
>additional baddies to deal with.  

This is fine.  I like the way ID Software used this approach in the
4 difficulty levels of Wolfenstien 3-D.  On the easiest level ("Daddy,
Can I Play"), you generally don't see the blue SS guards and there
are fewer enemies in general.  This works great for my son who recently
finished the first floor all by himself for the first time.


>If you don't play the harder level, you don't see some of the game.  
>Or on some, easy only allows you to see the first two levels of an 
>8 level games (Golden Axe, Smash TV)

I definitely would NOT like to see this approach continue!  My feelings
are that rational players will play according to their skill level.  So
if you have to play at a lower difficulty setting than Normal, you should
still get to play a whole game as far as other levels would go.  If you
only give them two levels, then what do they do if the next difficulty 
level is still out of their skill-reach?  "Too bad.  Keep playing these
same two levels over and over until you get better."  Un, un.  This is
a great way to turn people off of a game.  Rather, let them keep going.
As they see more of the game, they are less likely to get bored with it.
And the further they go even on Easy, the challenges get somewhat harder.
So they gradually increase their skill thoughout.


>In short, most Game designers are listening.

I don't not believe that you are correct here.  I don't think that game
designers get a lot of feedback from players nor is this particular
issue one that they think about much.  There are very few game designers 
that have access to Usenet or even know what it is.  Hard to get the
message across when they are on a different channel.  Time to see if
this might be an appropriate topic for an article in Game Bytes.  Or 
maybe even (gasp) me writing some letters.  :-)

-- 
Mike Arms
Editor of Encounter magazine
uucp:      ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!marms
InterNet:  unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!marms   or   sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu