"Beating" a game vs. the game letting you win

[Lheticus]

I wonder if this angle as to why I hate level grinding and using hugely effective cheese strategies will be any more helpful than what I've already discussed...

Basically, I now believe I hate beating a game through level grinding, ridicucheese strategies, and things like doing all side quests to get the Infinity+1 Sword because I don't feel like I BEAT the game...more like the game allowed me to win--in the vein of "I let you win." With grinding levels, using ridiculous strategies, and getting ridiculous equipment, I feel that the method of beating the game comes from the GAME, and I want the way I win to come from ME.

Does that...make any more sense than how I've come at it before? >_<

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It makes sense to me. It sends the message "spend enough time in this game, and you'll win", which is a scummy tactic used by a lot of social media games with the intent of getting time investment. Because the more time you spend in those games, the likelier it is that you'll spend money in them.

You're interested in games where, no matter how much time you spend in them, you still have to play well to win. You don't want to be godmoded into winning, even if it's a payoff for time investment. Which honestly does make sense to me.

[Lheticus]

It makes sense to me. It sends the message "spend enough time in this game, and you'll win", which is a scummy tactic used by a lot of social media games with the intent of getting time investment. Because the more time you spend in those games, the likelier it is that you'll spend money in them.

You're interested in games where, no matter how much time you spend in them, you still have to play well to win. You don't want to be godmoded into winning, even if it's a payoff for time investment. Which honestly does make sense to me.

EXACTLY. YES! YES! YES! YEEEEEESS! I'm FINALLY getting the message across that I've been trying to basically the entire dang time I've been discussing these issues! The problem is I'm not dealing with social media games here--I'm dealing with full fledged, ACCLAIMED even, games like Bravely Default, the Persona series, even the Kingdom Hearts series in terms of the bonus bosses. Though in KH, it's really a mirror image of the problem--the bonus bosses like Sephiroth are totally unfightable unless you pay into the leveling time sink far more than you need to to beat the game. In their own way, they're guilty of supporting that message just as social media games are. And I view this as a real problem! I'm worried that at the rate things are going, player skill will only remain a true factor AT ALL in games like Madden, Starcraft, and COD/TF2/Halo/whatever--at least in terms of the mainstream. Just how small a niche IS it in the gaming market these days that truly values getting gud, here?!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I sorta think of those types of games as "roadtrip games", largely because of what I enjoy in them: roadtrip games are about going cool places and seeing the scenery, and the game part is about engaging the tactical parts of the brain in some way. I don't think there's a coincidence that these games are usually the games which also have story and/or are RPGs: the typical arc of an RPG is "do stuff, get cool loot, unlock neat powers", and the logical outcome of that is "unlock enough powers, and you win everything".

I'm hesitant to point to them as a "trend" in gaming, because games tend to be much more diverse than we give them credit for. (For example, there was an article recently wondering "do we even need characters in games?", with the gist of "too many games are focused on characters' stories and not on being games about systems", despite the fact that Firaxis and Paradox are both putting out high-quality games in that vein.) I think competitive gaming definitely still has a hefty niche, even though it's limited to some arenas (mostly Capcom-style fighters, FPSes, MOBAs, and RTSes).

Though it's true that within each niche, there's very few competitors in terms of games taken seriously as competitive games. Arcade fighters are probably the most diverse group, as evidenced by events like Evo. FPSes have, well...Counterstrike, whatever the hot new FPS is, and maybe Halo for name recognition. MOBAs have LoL and (sorta) DotA, and time will tell if Heroes of the Storm winds up being another competitive staple. RTSes have Starcraft (wow, there really was an RTS boom and bust a decade back). Oh, yeah, you bring up a good point with Madden.

I wouldn't say that games outside of the seriously competitive sphere eliminate player skill, and I think player skill will remain--Nintendo in particular is good about this, but puzzle games are another sort of game that highlights player skill over stats advantage.

[dragonsamurai77]

EXACTLY. YES! YES! YES! YEEEEEESS! I'm FINALLY getting the message across that I've been trying to basically the entire dang time I've been discussing these issues! The problem is I'm not dealing with social media games here--I'm dealing with full fledged, ACCLAIMED even, games like Bravely Default, the Persona series, even the Kingdom Hearts series in terms of the bonus bosses. Though in KH, it's really a mirror image of the problem--the bonus bosses like Sephiroth are totally unfightable unless you pay into the leveling time sink far more than you need to to beat the game. In their own way, they're guilty of supporting that message just as social media games are. And I view this as a real problem! I'm worried that at the rate things are going, player skill will only remain a true factor AT ALL in games like Madden, Starcraft, and COD/TF2/Halo/whatever--at least in terms of the mainstream. Just how small a niche IS it in the gaming market these days that truly values getting gud, here?!

I don't think Kingdom Hearts is the best example; he's easily beatable in both 1FM and 2FM at Level 1; no grinding needed. In 2, you do need a tiny amount of Drive Form leveling (DHA can't be interrupted without High Jump + Aerial Dodge), but not nearly enough that I'd consider it a "time sink".

[Lheticus]

I don't think Kingdom Hearts is the best example; he's easily beatable in both 1FM and 2FM at Level 1; no grinding needed. In 2, you do need a tiny amount of Drive Form leveling (DHA can't be interrupted without High Jump + Aerial Dodge), but not nearly enough that I'd consider it a "time sink".

I've never played final mix. In the original, I remember trying him at like in the 50s of levels and dying from like 2 hits half a dozen times before going "okay, screw this" after I actually got ONE hit on him before dying and it didn't reduce his life meter.

Was final mix even RELEASED in the US, anyway?! Oh and by the way, beating anyone like that at level ONE implies to me that you need a very specific method--this fails my SECOND peeve about beating the game rather than the game letting you win--using a ridiculously effective strategy.

[dragonsamurai77]

I've never played final mix. In the original, I remember trying him at like in the 50s of levels and dying from like 2 hits half a dozen times before going "okay, screw this" after I actually got ONE hit on him before dying and it didn't reduce his life meter.

Was final mix even RELEASED in the US, anyway?! Oh and by the way, beating anyone like that at level ONE implies to me that you need a very specific method--this fails my SECOND peeve about beating the game rather than the game letting you win--using a ridiculously effective strategy.

Yes, in the 1.5 and 2.5 ReMIX compilations. I mention Final Mix only because there's no option to stay Level 1 in the originals.

As for dying in 2 hits, that, to me, is the brilliance of it. Yes, things kill you extremetly quickly, but everything is avoidable, especially with Limits.

EDIT: Actually, no; just dodging and counterattacking, with knowledge of his pattern, is enough to get through both iterations of Sephiroth, even at Level 1.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Monster Hunter is a game that's becoming more popular outside of Japan (where it's been huge for a while) which avoids this, I think. You don't have levels, only equipment, and while equipment helps (and is necessary to a certain extent - go at something sufficiently late with a starting weapon and you'll run out the timer on the hunter, but you'd never even try outside of personal challenges anyway), you could be wearing the best suit in the game and even the early monsters could crush you if you aren't any good. It's a bit of a newbie-unfriendly series, though the newest installment, Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate (for the 3DS) is apparently a bit better (I'm still playing 3 Ultimate for the moment but I'm planning to get 4U when I can), and there are all sorts of guides online to get you from failing because the game hasn't told you what you need to know to failing because the game isn't easy.
AI companions and co-operative multiplayer are available but optional, and there aren't so much "cheesy strategies" as knowing how to use your weapon(s) of choice - all of which are viable in their own ways, just find one that's right for you. I think the series is worth a shot if that (and the premise of low-story, hunt monsters because it's frickin' cool) interests you.

[tonberrian]

Why shouldn't games have optional bosses outside the normal parameters of the game? They're optional. Your are entirely within your prerogative to ignore them if you want them. And the best bonus bosses require a level of player skill above and beyond getting your stats past the "you must be this tall" signs, something that a lot of final bosses fail to accomplish.

[Lheticus]

Why shouldn't games have optional bosses outside the normal parameters of the game? They're optional. Your are entirely within your prerogative to ignore them if you want them. And the best bonus bosses require a level of player skill above and beyond getting your stats past the "you must be this tall" signs, something that a lot of final bosses fail to accomplish.

All right, sure. There seems to be a bit of an excessive fixation here on something I intended to be an example in a group of examples. Sure, it's a weak example. Strike it from the record if you must. But I'd really like to get back to talking about the tendency of many games well beyond mere social media games to reward time spent over skill acquired that DOES exist.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

All right, sure. There seems to be a bit of an excessive fixation here on something I intended to be an example in a group of examples. Sure, it's a weak example. Strike it from the record if you must. But I'd really like to get back to talking about the tendency of many games well beyond mere social media games to reward time spent over skill acquired that DOES exist.
You probably want to clarify that. :smallsmile:

I suspect you're thinking primarily of games where time spent = stat accumulation = winning the game.

Because it's also true that you need to invest lots of time into a game in order to acquire skill at it.

[SowZ]

I've never played final mix. In the original, I remember trying him at like in the 50s of levels and dying from like 2 hits half a dozen times before going "okay, screw this" after I actually got ONE hit on him before dying and it didn't reduce his life meter.

Was final mix even RELEASED in the US, anyway?! Oh and by the way, beating anyone like that at level ONE implies to me that you need a very specific method--this fails my SECOND peeve about beating the game rather than the game letting you win--using a ridiculously effective strategy.

My old roommate actually did a level 1 run through of Kingdom Hearts. It's tough, but with enough skill you can beat that game. Other games that are purely numbers and no active combat are impossible without some leveling much of the time, yeah.

[Lheticus]

You probably want to clarify that. :smallsmile:

I suspect you're thinking primarily of games where time spent = stat accumulation = winning the game.

Because it's also true that you need to invest lots of time into a game in order to acquire skill at it.

Yes, this, only it's more stat/ability/equipment accumulation, not just stat. And what I'd want for games in genres where such accumulation is readily available, is that time spent = accumulation /= winning the game AND NOT accumulation /= NOT winning the game.

[GloatingSwine]

Basically, I now believe I hate beating a game through level grinding, ridicucheese strategies, and things like doing all side quests to get the Infinity+1 Sword because I don't feel like I BEAT the game...more like the game allowed me to win--in the vein of "I let you win." With grinding levels, using ridiculous strategies, and getting ridiculous equipment, I feel that the method of beating the game comes from the GAME, and I want the way I win to come from ME.


Did you do all of that without looking any of it up?

Because most of the games which are designed with those elements in are also designed such that they are not immediately obvious, and the intended skill is investigating the possibility space sufficiently that you find the winning strategy and/or equipment.

[Lheticus]

Did you do all of that without looking any of it up?

Because most of the games which are designed with those elements in are also designed such that they are not immediately obvious, and the intended skill is investigating the possibility space sufficiently that you find the winning strategy and/or equipment.

Yeah well, since it's so easy TO look things up what with the internet and all, it's not really a valid way to promote skill anymore imo.

[Hytheter]

I'm dealing with full fledged, ACCLAIMED even, games like Bravely Default, the Persona series, even the Kingdom Hearts series

The thing is though with most games with levelling systems (mostly RPGs) is that grinding for levels and gear is only one way to beat the game. It's usually quite possible to beat the game using skill, strategy and whatever experience and equipment you pick up incidentally along the way. Having both options is a good thing because it allows a wider variety of players to get their money's worth. Unskilled players can brute force their way through the game by grinding, while skilled players develop skills and tactics that let them get through the game without excessive levelling.

Personally, I fall somewhere in between.

[Eldan]

Yeah well, since it's so easy TO look things up what with the internet and all, it's not really a valid way to promote skill anymore imo.

I don't know... I still enjoy point and click adventure games, even if I could just look up all the puzzles online.

[Hytheter]

Yeah well, since it's so easy TO look things up what with the internet and all, it's not really a valid way to promote skill anymore imo.

Wait, hold on, are you seriously looking up ideal strategies on the internet and then complaining that the games are too easy to win?

That's not the game letting you win. That's you using external tools in lieu of players skill, and then getting annoyed about it! You might as well say Battletoads is too easy because you can make yourself invincible using a game genie.

Maybe you would like these games more if you didn't actively sabotage your own enjoyment of them.

[Lheticus]

Wait, hold on, are you seriously looking up ideal strategies on the internet and then complaining that the games are too easy to win?

That's not the game letting you win. That's you using external tools in lieu of players skill, and then getting annoyed about it! You might as well say Battletoads is too easy because you can make yourself invincible using a game genie.

Maybe you would like these games more if you didn't actively sabotage your own enjoyment of them.

Now hang on, that's not exactly it. I don't look up the ideal strategies. It's not a matter of them being on the internet making a game too easy. I would prefer NO strategy being truly close to surefire--the sort of game where pre battle planning only gets you so far. So even if you come up with something really good there STILL needs to be an in battle skill component or you'll still lose. But in JRPGs "in battle" seems to be where skill is a factor the LEAST.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There might be another factor here: the existence of ideal strategies period.

I'm gonna link an article that David Sirlin wrote (IIRC his book Playing to Win got referenced on an earlier Lheticus thread) called Solvability (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/solvability). It's a great read, but here's the intro paragraph (which is basically like an abstract...):

Designing competitive strategy games is a constant fight against solvability. It's a struggle to make a system simple enough to understand, yet complex enough that players can't figure out the best way to play and then always play that same way.

In a solved game, there's one optimal strategy, and it no longer becomes something you have to constantly wrestle with. Just execute that strategy correctly, and you can win the game. It becomes an optimization problem, and an efficiency problem: how efficiently can you execute the ideal strategy?

In a mixed solution game, you have to actively evaluate the game and also take a few risks. Knowing when to take those risks becomes part of playing the game effectively. Of course, this becomes much more viable in a game where you play against actual intelligence opposition, because then you can out-think it. The biggest problem facing computer games is that, for most games, competing against the computer just means out-optimizing it, because a computer's skillset lies in optimization, not in thinking. Mixed-solution games can boil down to random guessing, since AI doesn't work like human intelligence.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Monster Hunter is a game that's becoming more popular outside of Japan (where it's been huge for a while) which avoids this, I think. You don't have levels, only equipment, and while equipment helps (and is necessary to a certain extent - go at something sufficiently late with a starting weapon and you'll run out the timer on the hunter, but you'd never even try outside of personal challenges anyway), you could be wearing the best suit in the game and even the early monsters could crush you if you aren't any good.

Uh, no. Gear is your level. There is a HUGE difference between low-rank armor, high-rank armor, and G-rank armor.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Uh, no. Gear is your level. There is a HUGE difference between low-rank armor, high-rank armor, and G-rank armor.

There is, but you can "punch beyond your weight" a lot more than some other games. And conversely, all the armour in the world can still have you losing if you're not any good. By the end of Bravely Default, my team had a chance of reviving at the end of every turn, could be healed pretty much to full in one of the four(-to-sixteen, technically) actions I had each turn, performed their various attacks to hit the damage cap or approach it against a group in one action each (or more efficiently with more costly combinations). Failing a fight would involve failing to guard the few enemies capable of wiping the whole party at once (generally bonus bosses) or deliberately doing nothing turn after turn. By comparison, even middling monsters in Monster Hunter can crush you with little care for what armour you're wearing if you don't know how to dodge, or attack recklessly. I'm not the best at the game, and frequently get caught out for being cocky. Having seen Lheticus' threads about trying to find games a few times, I thought I'd chime in quickly with a game that seemed to not fall into the idea of rewarding time spent with "too little" regard for skill, noting that that's a hazy notion by itself.

(Personally, I have no problem with games rewarding time spent in addition to or in lieu of other factors. People have different things that they give up to play games, and it's not a bad thing to allow progression on raw time over learning the game (which will usually come along with time spent anyway), or finger coordination or whatever else a game might gate progression through. Provided that doesn't become a monopoly on game design, but since there is the entire field of multiplayer competitive games that does not and would struggle to do this, I doubt that's a serious concern.)

That said, I typed that post quickly and it's a series that seemed to me - as someone who's always played solo and never gotten to G rank - to fit the idea. I'll defer to greater experience. And I've probably overstayed in this thread already, so I'll go back to lurking now.

[Mando Knight]

The biggest problem facing computer games is that, for most games, competing against the computer just means out-optimizing it, because a computer's skillset lies in optimization, not in thinking.
This includes optimizing into exploiting the computer's weaknesses, in case one finds a flaw in how the computer determines optimization (i.e. exposing a point that the computer considers "weak" but is actually strong, like building a Tower Defense-like deathtrap out of walls in Age of Empires II against the original AI).

[Rodin]

Of course, the designers of the game also know the AI's weaknesses, and design the difficulty around that. Take Fire Emblem - a human player can easily overcome the AI. As compensation, the AI gets the map heavily weighted in its favor to begin with. A human player could pick the opposing side in most Fire Emblem maps and wipe the floor with a human opposing player simply because they have 3-4x as many units. You may have legendary weaponry, but quantity has a quality all of its own. The only way a human player could win in that situation is by having units that can solo the entire map (not an uncommon occurrence in Fire Emblem, I admit).

But the point of the AI design isn't to beat the Human player in that case. Heck, it isn't even to challenge them sufficiently to force them to win with a single super unit. The point is to make them play well enough to win with NO casualties, and as any Fire Emblem player can tell you, that quickly becomes super difficult.

I don't expect an AI to be able to out-think me on a level playing field. I expect it to cheat its ass off and provide a good challenge for me while hiding the fact that it's cheating.

[Lethologica]

RPGs are balancing conflicting impulses. On the one hand, they want to challenge your ability to beat the game. On the other hand, they want to tell you a compelling narrative, which requires letting you reach the end eventually, and also not throwing so much difficult gameplay at you that you lose track of the plot between steps. Different RPGs balance these impulses differently.

[BeerMug Paladin]

As someone else suggested, puzzle games generally don't hand you the solutions outright. I like the genre in concept, but feel most are usually too easy to provide much decent challenge. So your basic complaint could hold for me, but directed exclusively at puzzle games.

Part of the problem you have may be due to the fact that most people with money to burn on games don't have great amounts of time to invest in playing games. So repeating the same challenges over and over again in order to get good may be a dealbreaker for many of the people games are marketed to.

Especially if one sets down the game for several days after playing for only a couple hours in a go. So there simply won't be the kind of investment needed with a very twitchy game in order to train the skill needed for it. If that's the type of experience a game is offering, many might just skip it entirely, regardless of whether it's good or not.

So timesink level-grinding components in games can have an appeal since an hour spent with the game can pretty much always guarantee tangible progress of some kind. Eventually, you'll be guaranteed to see new content even if you don't bother to learn the nuance of the game's finer details or train your reflexes to be super-twitchy.

Oh, and when I play games like Neverwinter Nights or Fallout, I typically make zero effort at disciplined optimization in favor of making a concept character level up as the character would want. So my two-weapon fighting dragon disciple or the clumsy vault nerd who thought guns were cool were fun characters to play as, but rendered my actual playthroughs more difficult/impossible as I progressed.

I'd suggest trying something like that out, as it makes the game harder in general, but that may be the type of thing that few people besides myself would find fun.

[endoperez]

Why shouldn't games have optional bosses outside the normal parameters of the game? They're optional. Your are entirely within your prerogative to ignore them if you want them. And the best bonus bosses require a level of player skill above and beyond getting your stats past the "you must be this tall" signs, something that a lot of final bosses fail to accomplish.

Here's an cRPG designer explaining it:
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2010/01/why-bushwhacking-your-players-is-bad.html


Difficulty In a Game Should Have a Curve With As Few Bumps As Possible

When you are supposed to enter an area, you should be able to handle all of the encounters and quests in that area. Want to put in something tough? Save it for the next area. Seriously.

He does give a well-made counter-example, so it's not like that's the only way to do things, but it's a good reason to not make optional, tougher area bosses a habit.

Also, here he agrees with the OP (I think):

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-then-make-it-easier.html


When a player is on the default difficult level, has built his or her characters poorly, and is playing straight through the main storyline with mediocre tactics, that player should almost never be killed.

Note that that is the DEFAULT difficulty, and the hard modes can still be hard.

[DodgerH2O]

Just to chime in with a sort of counter opinion, I'm the type of person who plays RPGs for storyline and specifically to optimize then crush the challenges. FFXIII really really really angered me. I actually never beat it. Why? Because it's the only one so far (that I know of) where the game itself limits your progress to keep things "challenging".

I don't play Final Fantasy for a challenge. I play because I want to overlevel my party and then steamroll through the storyline. If I spend 4 hours grinding levels and unlocking abilities and get an hour of storyline out of it before I have to grind again, that's perfect.

Random battles are not fun for me, I want to be able to beat them with as little effort as possible. FFXII was amazing for this, later in the game if I set things up properly I rarely had to touch the controller once the battle started.

[tonberrian]

Here's an cRPG designer explaining it:
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2010/01/why-bushwhacking-your-players-is-bad.html



He does give a well-made counter-example, so it's not like that's the only way to do things, but it's a good reason to not make optional, tougher area bosses a habit.

Also, here he agrees with the OP (I think):

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-then-make-it-easier.html



Note that that is the DEFAULT difficulty, and the hard modes can still be hard.

The thing Jeff is arguing against is not what I'm arguing for.

[GloatingSwine]

Just to chime in with a sort of counter opinion, I'm the type of person who plays RPGs for storyline and specifically to optimize then crush the challenges. FFXIII really really really angered me. I actually never beat it. Why? Because it's the only one so far (that I know of) where the game itself limits your progress to keep things "challenging".

I don't play Final Fantasy for a challenge. I play because I want to overlevel my party and then steamroll through the storyline. If I spend 4 hours grinding levels and unlocking abilities and get an hour of storyline out of it before I have to grind again, that's perfect.

Random battles are not fun for me, I want to be able to beat them with as little effort as possible. FFXII was amazing for this, later in the game if I set things up properly I rarely had to touch the controller once the battle started.

On the other hand, FFXIII only has about five challenging battles in it and they're hard no matter what "level" you are.

I don't mind gated progress in the levelling mechanics, but I do think it should be tied to something other than or as well as story progression. If unlocking new levels of the crysterium was possible by completing side activities (if there had been side activities) and was therefore part of the game rather than just an arbitrary power gate it would have been better.


When a player is on the default difficult level, has built his or her characters poorly, and is playing straight through the main storyline with mediocre tactics, that player should almost never be killed.

If the player has built his characters poorly and is using mediocre tactics you did a terrible job communicating what good builds and tactics would constitute in your game.

It's entirely valid that a player should be expected to learn to play the game properly in order to win on the default difficulty, but the game should communicate well enough for them to learn how to do that and not make them make irreversable decisions in a vacuum.

[Lheticus]

On the other hand, FFXIII only has about five challenging battles in it and they're hard no matter what "level" you are.

I don't mind gated progress in the levelling mechanics, but I do think it should be tied to something other than or as well as story progression. If unlocking new levels of the crysterium was possible by completing side activities (if there had been side activities) and was therefore part of the game rather than just an arbitrary power gate it would have been better.



If the player has built his characters poorly and is using mediocre tactics you did a terrible job communicating what good builds and tactics would constitute in your game.

It's entirely valid that a player should be expected to learn to play the game properly in order to win on the default difficulty, but the game should communicate well enough for them to learn how to do that and not make them make irreversable decisions in a vacuum.

ON the subject of such irreversible decisions. It really annoys me when the bosses in a video game are perfectly manageable, then when you get to the final boss the difficulty increases to levels not even remotely indicated were possible by all prior gameplay. Once again, JRPGs that are built on level/ability progression seem to be the most guilty of this. I'm starting to wonder how I fell in love with them in the first place.

[veti]

I had this discussion with my spouse recently, in the context of playing Dragon Quest 9, which involved an unbelievable amount of pretty tedious grinding.

The spouse's line was: "You wanted something to pass the time, and you're complaining that it's taking too long? There's no pleasing some people."

Fair point, I thought.

Yes, the game is irritatingly and lazily built, replacing design and gameplay with repetitious grinding. But on the other hand, it is doing what it says on the tin - "XX hours of gameplay", where XX is stupid. I still hate it, but I can see how it comes about and why.

[GloatingSwine]

JRPGs rarely have enough decisions in the character building system to produce that kind of outcome in my experience. The end boss might be a difficulty spike but generally not for reasons other than "has really big numbers", they don't tend to arbitrarily change the rules of the game. (Orphan in FFXIII casts doom on you, which is basically a time limit for the fight, but that's essentially just a numbers challenge and the battles should have trained you to the idea of winning fast anyway)

A better example is something like Knights of the Old Republic.

If you play a light side Scoundrel/Jedi Consular and do not take either the Destroy Droid or Lightsabre Throw powers it is quite possible that you will reach the final boss and be utterly unable to win, because you cannot destroy the stasis pods he uses to heal without those powers with a light side character.

There's nothing else in the game which forces you to take those powers, and since the rest of the time you are in a three person party you can often have made them Jolee's job (and Lightsabre Throw is otherwise terrible and you won't use it ever otherwise)

Nothing at that point other than restarting the whole game can alter that outcome, you can lock yourself into an unwinnable game with a wrong character build which you had absolutely no idea would be wrong because no other challenge in the game has been a one on one fight with an environmental target which requires damage dealing force powers. And since you are now at the end of the game, and you cannot respec your power choices, you cannot undo the bad build.

Diablo 2 is also a clear example, Diablo 2 has a wide possibility space for stats and skill points, almost all of the possibility space is wrong*, but you have no idea which parts of the possibility space are wrong without irrevocably investing in it, and if you find out that you invested wrong (which you won't do until you reach Nightmare/Hell) then the only way you can explore any other part of the possibility space (which might also be wrong) is to restart the game.


*As an example there is basically one correct stat build, 120 or 220 Str depending on your endgame armour, 75 Agi, no Energy, and everything else in Vitality. If you didn't do that, you did your stats wrong. But you don't find out your stats are wrong until long after you have spent the points and you can't undo those choices.

[Rodin]

I still remember my first Diablo II character. He was a summoner Necro and had put literally everything into boosting summons and then sitting back and letting the summons do the work. Up until Diablo, this had worked fine.

What I did not realize is that the Act bosses got a random 10x damage bonus against minions. The previous bosses to that point didn't have great AOE abilities for the most part, so even losing some of my minions wasn't a big deal. Diablo, on the other hand, had a flame nova that could destroy every minion on the screen simultaneously. And he did this repeatedly.

I wound up spending over half an hour grinding Diablo down with a level 1 Bone Spear spell that I had picked up just to see what the spell did. I would run around, shooting with Bone Spears until I was out of mana, and then die. Rinse and repeat.

I've never really forgiven Blizzard for that. Who makes an entire specialization for a class and then doesn't make sure that specialization can beat the game on the lowest difficulty?

[Hamste]

Desktop dungeons is a pretty good example of beating the game through skill over grinding. No matter how well equipped you are or what tier of hero you have, if you are not smart enough with using your resources you will die...a lot. In game they explain many of the strategies through bonus puzzles but even those will not help you if you can not apply them appropriately.

[tonberrian]

Any strategy that you build in a game, whether it's overpowered or not, is given to you by the game. The game gives you a toolbox, and its up to you to use that toolbox to make something that can beat it. The toolbox in a turn-based RPG typically includes equipment, passive abilities, active abilities, and stat points. How, exactly, are you supposed to build a strategy to beat a game that doesn't come from these things? The test of player skill is seeing which of these are better, including determining if a combination of numerically inferior tools can be used to build something that is more efficient than than it would appear by its numerical inferiority.

Do certain games provide you with individual pieces that obviously are more powerful than the rest? Well, yeah. A lot of games provide equipment that is clearly superior to any other piece, because bigger numbers is fairly simple to program. Fewer provide multiple options that emphasize different playstyles. Others provide clearly superior things, but in not enough numbers for everybody, and the puzzle is in figuring the most efficient way to use them to make the team, as a whole, the most efficient.

On the other hand, most games become solved* very fast after release now, simply because there are so many people on the internet playing the game. The internet as a whole can put in vast amount of time into a game and run comparisons on different playstyles almost instantaneously. This is how metagames develop. It is inevitable that people talk about games, and optimize. Thankfully, game designers are, as a whole, moving away from One True Build, which means for most games there are a number of viable options at top-level play, not just one. Because having everybody play the exact same thing is boring. Not every strategy is viable at top-level play, that's true. But "sitting there and not doing anything" is a strategy, and having that viable at top-level means something bad for the game as a whole.

So what can you do about that? Well, the easy thing is to ignore it. You don't have to be involved with the metagame any more than you want to (though to be entirely removed would mean not analyzing the game and changing your strategy at random rather than as a response to results, or even not changing strategy at all - doing these things creates your own personal metagame). You don't have to look up ideal setups on the internet if you don't want to. But the game, by definition, gives you everything you need to beat it, other than your skills at analyzing the game or your reflexes (if applicable). Every passive, every stat point, every piece of equipment in the game is, tautologically, in the game. If you are unsatisfied with experiences playing games, you either need to play different games or choose to change your approach to playing them.

Also, an easy way to have more player skill in a game is to make the player's reflexes important. But you've already said you don't like games with real-time components, so apparently those are out.

* - Until the next time somebody has inspiration about a new cool thing. Most video games are complex enough that you can't test every combination of things in any reasonable amount of time, internet or no internet. So with a large enough base of players, even a static game might occasionally find some new strategy, in theory. I believe the Starcraft metagame was still evolving, even after the last patch, though I've never been a competitive Starcraft player, so I don't know for sure.

[danzibr]

Here's an cRPG designer explaining it:
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2010/01/why-bushwhacking-your-players-is-bad.html

He does give a well-made counter-example, so it's not like that's the only way to do things, but it's a good reason to not make optional, tougher area bosses a habit.

Also, here he agrees with the OP (I think):

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-then-make-it-easier.html

Note that that is the DEFAULT difficulty, and the hard modes can still be hard.
Huh. I recall reading this stuff a while ago. This guy would put a hard bonus monster in per area, right? Then later he looked back and said man, that was stupid of me.

Personally, as a gamer, I really like stuff like that. Get your ass kicked, gives motivation to return later when you're stronger.

I really dislike it when there aren't things like that to kick your ass. It's like D&D when there's a forest with CR5 monsters when you're level 1, and you're told to do such-and-such in the opposite direction of the forest. If you want to explore and get your ass kicked, go right ahead.

[Gandariel]

So, yeah.

Quick answer:
Some games are *supposed* to have you grind to beat them. If you don't like it, you don't like the games.

Other games, where it is more about skill/physical abilities(reflexes, multitasking), there *still* is a set of " best" options, but nobody forces those upon you. You have all the time to learn them, and just not look up which ones are the best.

The only other category left here is pvp games: while you may avoid looking up the best strategies, your opponents certainly are, and you might as well do it too.
Playing PvP necessarily puts you into the Metagame sphere, where you either use the top strats or use the best thing *against* those.

This is pretty much unavoidable, so if you don't like it it's probably the wrong genre.

@starcraft's meta evolving : yes it is, but it's mostly because of the physical skill involved: how well does a player know (and train )to use unit X against unit Y' harass, for example. (A prime example is Blink Stalkers)

[Lheticus]

Any strategy that you build in a game, whether it's overpowered or not, is given to you by the game. The game gives you a toolbox, and its up to you to use that toolbox to make something that can beat it. The toolbox in a turn-based RPG typically includes equipment, passive abilities, active abilities, and stat points. How, exactly, are you supposed to build a strategy to beat a game that doesn't come from these things? The test of player skill is seeing which of these are better, including determining if a combination of numerically inferior tools can be used to build something that is more efficient than than it would appear by its numerical inferiority.

Do certain games provide you with individual pieces that obviously are more powerful than the rest? Well, yeah. A lot of games provide equipment that is clearly superior to any other piece, because bigger numbers is fairly simple to program. Fewer provide multiple options that emphasize different playstyles. Others provide clearly superior things, but in not enough numbers for everybody, and the puzzle is in figuring the most efficient way to use them to make the team, as a whole, the most efficient.

On the other hand, most games become solved* very fast after release now, simply because there are so many people on the internet playing the game. The internet as a whole can put in vast amount of time into a game and run comparisons on different playstyles almost instantaneously. This is how metagames develop. It is inevitable that people talk about games, and optimize. Thankfully, game designers are, as a whole, moving away from One True Build, which means for most games there are a number of viable options at top-level play, not just one. Because having everybody play the exact same thing is boring. Not every strategy is viable at top-level play, that's true. But "sitting there and not doing anything" is a strategy, and having that viable at top-level means something bad for the game as a whole.

So what can you do about that? Well, the easy thing is to ignore it. You don't have to be involved with the metagame any more than you want to (though to be entirely removed would mean not analyzing the game and changing your strategy at random rather than as a response to results, or even not changing strategy at all - doing these things creates your own personal metagame). You don't have to look up ideal setups on the internet if you don't want to. But the game, by definition, gives you everything you need to beat it, other than your skills at analyzing the game or your reflexes (if applicable). Every passive, every stat point, every piece of equipment in the game is, tautologically, in the game. If you are unsatisfied with experiences playing games, you either need to play different games or choose to change your approach to playing them.

Also, an easy way to have more player skill in a game is to make the player's reflexes important. But you've already said you don't like games with real-time components, so apparently those are out.

* - Until the next time somebody has inspiration about a new cool thing. Most video games are complex enough that you can't test every combination of things in any reasonable amount of time, internet or no internet. So with a large enough base of players, even a static game might occasionally find some new strategy, in theory. I believe the Starcraft metagame was still evolving, even after the last patch, though I've never been a competitive Starcraft player, so I don't know for sure.

Okay...I think here I'll start with my problem with real time components. My problem with most games with real time components that I've played is that these components largely take a backseat to the usual trifecta of EXP/abilities/equipment, or there are other problems like the relatively low impact of micromanagement compared to the macro game in RTS games like Starcraft II. Most games that have real time components, to me, create an ILLUSION that player reflex skill is important when in fact the components of the game's system independent of that are far more important, or at least much less trouble to use to win the game at the expense of the other components, than the reflex component. I am NOT going to say Kingdom Hearts here as it is most definitely an exception to this concern. I don't know at this point how many times I'm going to need to say that I in fact really like that series.

All right, now for the whole "tools in the toolbox" argument. I consider the tools I'm given "too good" if they are used in such a way that it is implausible to lose the battle if I use them. I'm going to use another Bravely Default example here, as an example of a fairly broken strategy that in the end I didn't mind using. I forget the details, but I used an extremely powerful, I would even say broken, strategy in Chapter 4 to defeat the dragons guarding the Keystones to DeRosso's manor. However, even WITH this strategy, each battle with those dragons was on a knife's edge--if I let the order of events slip for an INSTANT, I would basically lose immediately. I guess this means I've come to terms with the "either you win or you don't" nature of JRPG boss battles if the either/or is presented in that fashion.

As a counter-example, Stillness. Stillness is the Spiritmaster ability that negates all damage dealt to and by the enemy, basically rendering it impossible for damage to be dealt for two turns. It may be temporary, but in that time frame it is literally impossible for me to lose, and it's theoretically possible to keep Stillness going indefinitely, creating a situation analogous to Wobbuffet before they patched Shadow Tag. This is one kind of ability that I avoid on principle because it takes the possibility of losing out of the equation, it takes the suspense out of the battle, even if temporarily. Basically what I want is "if I play skillfully, I'll win, and if I don't play skillfully, I'll lose." And yes, there IS skill inherent in battle planning, but if that is the only skill dependent component, it is not sufficient for me. I need the game to have an essential skill component in the battles themselves, or at least some component where the skill component of the planning isn't truly essential to master to a high degree to win.

In other words, I love tactical thinking far more than strategic thinking. I very much value micro over macro play, to go back to Starcraft terminology.

[danzibr]

I still remember my first Diablo II character. He was a summoner Necro and had put literally everything into boosting summons and then sitting back and letting the summons do the work. Up until Diablo, this had worked fine.

What I did not realize is that the Act bosses got a random 10x damage bonus against minions. The previous bosses to that point didn't have great AOE abilities for the most part, so even losing some of my minions wasn't a big deal. Diablo, on the other hand, had a flame nova that could destroy every minion on the screen simultaneously. And he did this repeatedly.

I wound up spending over half an hour grinding Diablo down with a level 1 Bone Spear spell that I had picked up just to see what the spell did. I would run around, shooting with Bone Spears until I was out of mana, and then die. Rinse and repeat.

I've never really forgiven Blizzard for that. Who makes an entire specialization for a class and then doesn't make sure that specialization can beat the game on the lowest difficulty?
Holy crap, I didn't realize they got a 10x damage bonus against minions. I thought his flame nova stuff was just wiping my dudes (btw, I played a Summonancer as well).

[tonberrian]

Okay...I think here I'll start with my problem with real time components. My problem with most games with real time components that I've played is that these components largely take a backseat to the usual trifecta of EXP/abilities/equipment, or there are other problems like the relatively low impact of micromanagement compared to the macro game in RTS games like Starcraft II. Most games that have real time components, to me, create an ILLUSION that player reflex skill is important when in fact the components of the game's system independent of that are far more important, or at least much less trouble to use to win the game at the expense of the other components, than the reflex component. I am NOT going to say Kingdom Hearts here as it is most definitely an exception to this concern. I don't know at this point how many times I'm going to need to say that I in fact really like that series.

All right, now for the whole "tools in the toolbox" argument. I consider the tools I'm given "too good" if they are used in such a way that it is implausible to lose the battle if I use them. I'm going to use another Bravely Default example here, as an example of a fairly broken strategy that in the end I didn't mind using. I forget the details, but I used an extremely powerful, I would even say broken, strategy in Chapter 4 to defeat the dragons guarding the Keystones to DeRosso's manor. However, even WITH this strategy, each battle with those dragons was on a knife's edge--if I let the order of events slip for an INSTANT, I would basically lose immediately. I guess this means I've come to terms with the "either you win or you don't" nature of JRPG boss battles if the either/or is presented in that fashion.

As a counter-example, Stillness. Stillness is the Spiritmaster ability that negates all damage dealt to and by the enemy, basically rendering it impossible for damage to be dealt for two turns. It may be temporary, but in that time frame it is literally impossible for me to lose, and it's theoretically possible to keep Stillness going indefinitely, creating a situation analogous to Wobbuffet before they patched Shadow Tag. This is one kind of ability that I avoid on principle because it takes the possibility of losing out of the equation. Basically what I want is "if I play skillfully, I'll win, and if I don't play skillfully, I'll lose." And yes, there IS skill inherent in battle planning, but if that is the only skill dependent component, it is not sufficient for me. I need the game to have an essential skill component in the battles themselves, or at least some component where the skill component of the planning isn't truly essential to master to a high degree to win.

In other words, I love tactical thinking far more than strategic thinking. I very much value micro over macro play, to go back to Starcraft terminology.

I think you are judging real-time games too harshly. I know that in every Tales game I've played, I am significantly outdamaging what the AI would do fairly significantly. It's easy enough to compare, and the only difference is my reflexes vs. the computer's programming. Pretty much every action RPG I've played I could make a similar argument, though not without Tales' easy checking. So honestly I don't know what games you're talking about.

I've played through nearly all of Bravely Default, and while certain setups trivialize random encounters (including the Sage ability that wins random battles without fighting at all if you are sufficiently overpowered), I've found that late-late game boss fights, where you multiple bosses simultaneously, require incredibly fine-tuned strategies and more than a decent bit of luck even for characters with max levels and the best gear. Deciphering that strategy on my own is its own reward.

And it should be obvious, if a battle is on a knifepoint and could go either way, then the strategy you used is not overpowered at all by your definition. If you think it is overpowered, then your definition as stated is not what you are applying.

As for Stillness, not losing a battle is not nearly the same thing as winning it. You can not lose a battle simply by not playing it.

[Lheticus]

I think you are judging real-time games too harshly. I know that in every Tales game I've played, I am significantly outdamaging what the AI would do fairly significantly. It's easy enough to compare, and the only difference is my reflexes vs. the computer's programming. Pretty much every action RPG I've played I could make a similar argument, though not without Tales' easy checking. So honestly I don't know what games you're talking about.

I've played through nearly all of Bravely Default, and while certain setups trivialize random encounters (including the Sage ability that wins random battles without fighting at all if you are sufficiently overpowered), I've found that late-late game boss fights, where you multiple bosses simultaneously, require incredibly fine-tuned strategies and more than a decent bit of luck even for characters with max levels and the best gear. Deciphering that strategy on my own is its own reward.

And it should be obvious, if a battle is on a knifepoint and could go either way, then the strategy you used is not overpowered at all by your definition. If you think it is overpowered, then your definition as stated is not what you are applying.

As for Stillness, not losing a battle is not nearly the same thing as winning it.

All right, here's a Tales counter example...have you played Tales of Legendia? It seemed to me to place a much more massive emphasis on leveling to keep up than my first--and a positive--experience with the Tales series, Tales of Symphonia. In particular, Legendia combined the leveling emphasis with incredibly tedious dungeon designs, so it rather became a battle between the temptation to start skipping battles and get on with it and the knowledge that if I did, I probably would wind up too underpowered to beat the game. And when I broke through and started going through the Character Quests, things started getting truly outrageous--I'd say teetering on the point where prebattle planning outweighs in battle performance. And then when I got to the Dark Senel + Dark Shirley fight, I couldn't see any way in hell I'd EVER beat that, so I gave up and flat out traded away the game for a pittance just to get it out of my hands.

The Tales series as a whole is guilty of the misdemeanor side of my condition--that it's far easier to just level and get better weapons/armor/etc to get past a frustrating point than to use reflex skill to carry you through. Reflex can be an important consideration, but it can also be rendered unimportant with relatively little true effort.

As for Bravely Default, as I explained before, a game with a large in-battle tactical component is far more rewarding and gratifying to me than one with a large strategic component. An example to me is turn based strategy games like Advance Wars. There's no setting up before hand--for each campaign mission, you're given what you're bloody well given and demanded by the game to roll with it by whatever means you choose. There is a component of production, but the macro concerns in it are far less emphasized than they are in Starcraft II. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and A2 pass too--while building a strong overall clan is a significant component, your actions during the battles themselves are far more paramount. Super Smash Bros. in fact EXCELS in this area--I'd be playing the crap out of it if I had someone to play the crap out of it with. Like if we could set up playing on a regular basis and they'd promise not to steamroll me if it is in their ability to do so.

Finally, not losing a battle may not be the same as winning, but Stillness still utterly removes the suspense from the battle, the only tactical consideration for its duration being what to do with the bought time. To me, that's flat-out boring. It's a boring strategy that makes the game become more boring to me than it could be. That bit you added..."you can not lose a battle by not playing it." Well, Stillness makes me feel like I'm not actually playing the battle! Exactly!

[Daimbert]

I don't know... I still enjoy point and click adventure games, even if I could just look up all the puzzles online.

Personally, I enjoy them MORE when I can look up the answers, because it allows me to be precisely as confused and puzzled by the puzzle as I want to be. When I start to no longer enjoy trying to figure out the solution and start getting frustrated, I can just look up the answer and move on. This, I think, applies to all of this discussion: difficulty levels and the like should be tailored to your own personal level of frustration as much as possible. If there's one ideal way to do it, then people who want to run through it can take that, and people who want more of a challenge can either avoid it or figure it out for themselves, giving them a sense of satisfaction.

I think the problem might be cases where if you play the game intelligently and skillfully, it turns into a complete cakewalk where you have absolutely no challenge, and so the game gets LESS fun the better you are at it. That, I think, might get the OP feeling that they didn't really beat the game as much as had the game handed to them.


When a player is on the default difficult level, has built his or her characters poorly, and is playing straight through the main storyline with mediocre tactics, that player should almost never be killed.

I disagree.

Let's imagine that we have three difficulty levels: Easy, Medium (the default) and Hard. For Easy, what Vogel says here works, because that's the point: when you take that difficulty, you're essentially saying that you don't care about the details of building or of tactics; you just want to go through the game. For Medium, you should either be great at character building and poor at tactics, great at tactics but poor at character building, or okay but not great at both to get almost no deaths. On Hard, you should need to be great at both to hardly ever get killed.

Easy should always be "I either won't be able to or don't really want to try to do this in any optimized way", either because you're interested in the story or don't want a challenge or are time limited or whatever. Medium should be "I'm going to put some time into this but don't think that I'll get it all right". Hard should be "I think I'll be able to do this really, really well."

Someone who has Easy level skills but who is tolerant of retrying might take Medium for that reason: they can take the retry rate and wants the extra challenge. People who can't should stick to the level they're comfortable with.

And for the uber-gamers, you can even add in some extra settings to allow them to bump the difficulty up themselves to make it more of a challenge if Hard isn't even hard enough for them; they're great at the elements of the game and so feel that they don't really get a challenge out of it.

If you're going to have difficulty levels, then the more you have the BETTER, not the worse.

[danzibr]

Daimbert, I agree with your disagreement :P

And Lheticus, have you played the Shining Force games?

[Lethologica]

The Tales series as a whole is guilty of the misdemeanor side of my condition--that it's far easier to just level and get better weapons/armor/etc to get past a frustrating point than to use reflex skill to carry you through. Reflex can be an important consideration, but it can also be rendered unimportant with relatively little true effort.
Well, consider that cRPGs are really more accurately characterized as Level Progression Games, or Character Sheet Games--stat progression through an extended campaign is the element separating RPGs from other games (FPS aside). It is very difficult to design challenges that are both realistically possible to beat at the minimum level/weakest build, and realistically possible to lose at the maximum level/strongest build. One solution is to scale the challenge with your character's abilities, but for many players that just takes the satisfaction out of acquiring those abilities in the first place. Another solution is to significantly constrain the possible variation in level/build, but that requires limiting player choice, which is also unsatisfactory. Every cRPG has to weigh these three demons.

Of course, many cRPGs pick option 4, which is multiple difficulty levels. It's clunky, but reasonably effective.

Factor in also that you may not recognize when a challenge is beatable or lose-able. dragonsamurai77 previously pointed this out to you w.r.t. Sephiroth in Final Mix, which you abandoned in frustration even though he was beatable at low level. This is not to say that you were right or wrong to quit trying to beat Sephiroth. Rather, the point is that since game designers don't want players to quit battles (that often means quitting the game outright, after all), they are constrained not only by what the player can do, but what the player will put up with before getting either bored (if it's too easy) or frustrated (if it's too hard).

[Lheticus]

Well, consider that cRPGs are really more accurately characterized as Level Progression Games, or Character Sheet Games--stat progression through an extended campaign is the element separating RPGs from other games (FPS aside). It is very difficult to design challenges that are both realistically possible to beat at the minimum level/weakest build, and realistically possible to lose at the maximum level/strongest build. One solution is to scale the challenge with your character's abilities, but for many players that just takes the satisfaction out of acquiring those abilities in the first place. Another solution is to significantly constrain the possible variation in level/build, but that requires limiting player choice, which is also unsatisfactory. Every cRPG has to weigh these three demons.

Of course, many cRPGs pick option 4, which is multiple difficulty levels. It's clunky, but reasonably effective.

Factor in also that you may not recognize when a challenge is beatable or lose-able. dragonsamurai77 previously pointed this out to you w.r.t. Sephiroth in Final Mix, which you abandoned in frustration even though he was beatable at low level. This is not to say that you were right or wrong to quit trying to beat Sephiroth. Rather, the point is that since game designers don't want players to quit battles (that often means quitting the game outright, after all), they are constrained not only by what the player can do, but what the player will put up with before getting either bored (if it's too easy) or frustrated (if it's too hard).

Your first paragraph relies on the presumption that I'm arguing from extremes, so it looks like it's clarification time again! (I wonder how I could get the hang of making my arguments so I don't have to do this a half dozen times with every point I try to make...) Anyways, a game shouldn't be winnable at the lowest level and weakest build, that would only encourage people to not even fight any random encounters that come their way at all and just fight all the story bosses without even fighting random encounters over the course of the game. I'm going to use Kingdom Hearts again, but as a GOOD example this time. Its levels go up to 100 right? Well in my experience (talking specifically about KH1 here and NO final mix stuff, take note) it's quite plausible to beat the final boss in the 50s, so you don't have to get anywhere near the max level, without using any game breaking ability equips. Once we start talking about numbers much worse than that, say anything below the high 40s like level 48-49, it gets pretty darned implausible for an ordinary player (read: NOT one of the people who can beat Sephiroth at level 1. Seriously how would you even REACH that fight at level one? The bosses you're required to fight by that point are well more than enough to get you beyond level 1. Probably even level 10 unless you get the "start at nightfall" message.) to win the final battle.

In other words, if a level can feasibly reached over the normal course of playing the game, it's perfectly acceptable to require a party be around that level to win the final battle. Going by that logic though I could probably grind in Bravely Default to at least level 80--heck I probably will now that I've put this in writing. I'll turn off JP gain though because :smalltongue:.

As for your second paragraph, I don't know why you felt the need to go back to the Sephiroth example--it was a darned poor example on my part and I admitted as much. But I don't think it'd be reasonable for a player other than a challenge player specifically training and practicing for that accomplishment to pull that off.

[Rodin]

The problem you're running into is the clash between difficulty levels inherent in a leveling RPG.

The game tops out at level 50 for the final boss because that's the level you're expected to be when you fight him. So why have additional levels beyond that?

Because you are expected to level up further to take on the additional bosses. I was probably in the mid-80s by the time I took on Sephiroth with a chance of actually winning, because that's how long it took me to grind out the proper gear and get enough stats to stand a chance. And Sephiroth isn't even the hardest of the bonus bosses - I found Kurt Zisa to be far more challenging.

The games need those extra levels to allow for different types of players. Players who are not very good may very well need the extra leveling to be able to beat the main boss. They don't care about whether the game is "letting" them win or not. They want to see the conclusion of the story they've been playing for the last 50 hours. The better gamers need the extra levels because they want to keep playing after the story is finished. They want to take on those bonus bosses that require you be 20-30 levels above what the final boss was. Yes, it can be possible to cheese your way past them at a low level (or in more skill-based games like Kingdom Hearts, just be that good) but those people are a very tiny minority.

If you don't want to over-level and casually beat the final boss...don't do that. The game isn't forcing you to use cheesy strategies. Heck, the game isn't even forcing you to use strategies that make sense. Make the game harder on your self if that's what it takes.

My last Final Fantasy VI run is one of my favorite runs, because I gave myself rules. See, I've always found Magic to be rather overpowered in FFVI. For most characters, it's reliably better than what they're actually supposed to be doing, and it removes the incentive for characters with weaker unique skills to use said skills.

So, I invented character classes for the game. The only characters allowed to use Black Magic were natural casters like Terra, Celes, Relm, etc. Characters with strong natural abilities (Sabin, Edgar, Gau, etc) were only allowed to use Grey Magic. Strago was only allowed to use Blue and Grey Magic. Characters with weaker natural skills got given White magic, to encourage me to use them. This meant that folks like Locke and Cyan immediately had a place in my party where they wouldn't normally.

The game becomes a lot harder when you only have one character in your party that can use heals, or only one person who can cure Silence with a spell. I started using Items more, since not everybody had a Remedy spell.

In short, if you feel the game is letting you win....change the rules. It's a single-player game, do what you want.

[Lheticus]

The problem you're running into is the clash between difficulty levels inherent in a leveling RPG.

The game tops out at level 50 for the final boss because that's the level you're expected to be when you fight him. So why have additional levels beyond that?

Because you are expected to level up further to take on the additional bosses. I was probably in the mid-80s by the time I took on Sephiroth with a chance of actually winning, because that's how long it took me to grind out the proper gear and get enough stats to stand a chance. And Sephiroth isn't even the hardest of the bonus bosses - I found Kurt Zisa to be far more challenging.

The games need those extra levels to allow for different types of players. Players who are not very good may very well need the extra leveling to be able to beat the main boss. They don't care about whether the game is "letting" them win or not. They want to see the conclusion of the story they've been playing for the last 50 hours. The better gamers need the extra levels because they want to keep playing after the story is finished. They want to take on those bonus bosses that require you be 20-30 levels above what the final boss was. Yes, it can be possible to cheese your way past them at a low level (or in more skill-based games like Kingdom Hearts, just be that good) but those people are a very tiny minority.

If you don't want to over-level and casually beat the final boss...don't do that. The game isn't forcing you to use cheesy strategies. Heck, the game isn't even forcing you to use strategies that make sense. Make the game harder on your self if that's what it takes.

My last Final Fantasy VI run is one of my favorite runs, because I gave myself rules. See, I've always found Magic to be rather overpowered in FFVI. For most characters, it's reliably better than what they're actually supposed to be doing, and it removes the incentive for characters with weaker unique skills to use said skills.

So, I invented character classes for the game. The only characters allowed to use Black Magic were natural casters like Terra, Celes, Relm, etc. Characters with strong natural abilities (Sabin, Edgar, Gau, etc) were only allowed to use Grey Magic. Strago was only allowed to use Blue and Grey Magic. Characters with weaker natural skills got given White magic, to encourage me to use them. This meant that folks like Locke and Cyan immediately had a place in my party where they wouldn't normally.

The game becomes a lot harder when you only have one character in your party that can use heals, or only one person who can cure Silence with a spell. I started using Items more, since not everybody had a Remedy spell.

In short, if you feel the game is letting you win....change the rules. It's a single-player game, do what you want.

Um...where did I say I was mad about over leveling and casually beating the final boss? I was talking about when games FORCE you to grind additional battles to beat the final boss that you wouldn't encounter in the natural course of the game. I even admitted I'd skipped quite a few potential battles late game in Bravely Default by admitting I could probably grind up to level 80...heck, what's my character levels? I think 74...I could probably do up to 82-84 and just chalk it up as "make up" battles. As for whether I still feel the game is letting me win after that...well, I still need to test that don't I?

In short, I don't understand what you're trying to argue against here. I don't think it was anything I said. Err...in this thread anyway and my understanding has evolved since the last time I did complain about what you're talking about to the point where I wouldn't complain again.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I had this discussion with my spouse recently, in the context of playing Dragon Quest 9, which involved an unbelievable amount of pretty tedious grinding.

The spouse's line was: "You wanted something to pass the time, and you're complaining that it's taking too long? There's no pleasing some people."

Fair point, I thought.

Yes, the game is irritatingly and lazily built, replacing design and gameplay with repetitious grinding. But on the other hand, it is doing what it says on the tin - "XX hours of gameplay", where XX is stupid. I still hate it, but I can see how it comes about and why.

Uh... in the optional post-game? The only real grind I remember in the main story of DQ9 was a few hours I did for that swordsman boss. Now if you want lots and lots of vocation skills then it'll take you even longer to get decent enough base stats, but all but one of my characters were spread out to some degree (and the one that wasn't - my Martial Artist - still had juuust enough Thief to get the Half-Inch ability so I could do quests that require it).

[Lethologica]

Your first paragraph relies on the presumption that I'm arguing from extremes
I wasn't making that assumption. I was simply identifying the boundaries of the optimization problem: balancing between the freedom allowed to the player to complete the game at their own pace, the importance/satisfaction of leveling/gearing up, and the ability to design encounters that produce playable battles for the resulting variety of player characters. Identifying boundaries necessitates discussing endpoint cases.


As for your second paragraph, I don't know why you felt the need to go back to the Sephiroth example--it was a darned poor example on my part and I admitted as much. But I don't think it'd be reasonable for a player other than a challenge player specifically training and practicing for that accomplishment to pull that off.
It was an excellent example for the point I was making: that there is a significant difference between being playable in design and being playable in practice. And again, I attach no value judgment to your response to that boss--such a judgment would be irrelevant to my point.

[SiuiS]

You can spend time in kingdom hearts without advancing in any measurable way.

Why is earning the pieces necessary to win and then beating Sephiroth less worthy than earning the win? BecauE I guarantee you can put in triple the time and still auto fail if you don't know what you're doing.

It's not having a win handed to you. It's carving it out of a game that doesn't want to give it to you.

[Zyzzyva]

I don't play Final Fantasy for a challenge. I play because I want to overlevel my party and then steamroll through the storyline.

I'm not always this way, but there's definitely a place for this. Plenty of games I play, I don't play because I want to be challenged. I want to grind the computer under my heel.


If you play a light side Scoundrel/Jedi Consular and do not take either the Destroy Droid or Lightsabre Throw powers it is quite possible that you will reach the final boss and be utterly unable to win, because you cannot destroy the stasis pods he uses to heal without those powers with a light side character.

God, %&*#@$ that battle. :smallfurious: My first playthrough, I didn't even wield lightsabers - dual-wielding the wookiee sword and the one you buy on Yavin always did well by me - because the jedi were sanctimonious jerks. (And I decided on this before I hit the spoiler!) I rode through the star forge like a wave of mundane death, and then brick walled on the last stupid battle in the game. :smallfurious:

Re: the OP: I don't really mind that much. The game is always letting you win, because everything in the game is in its power. It's more just a question how well the game hides it.

[GloatingSwine]

God, %&*#@$ that battle. :smallfurious: My first playthrough, I didn't even wield lightsabers - dual-wielding the wookiee sword and the one you buy on Yavin always did well by me - because the jedi were sanctimonious jerks. (And I decided on this before I hit the spoiler!) I rode through the star forge like a wave of mundane death, and then brick walled on the last stupid battle in the game. :smallfurious:


Man, that's even more super-unoptimised than I ever considered given how infinitely better lightsabres were in KoTOR than any other weapon ever due to the upgrade mechanics.

I mean you didn't need to go that far to be unable to win the last fight, but that deserves respect.

[Zyzzyva]

Man, that's even more super-unoptimised than I ever considered given how infinitely better lightsabres were in KoTOR than any other weapon ever due to the upgrade mechanics.

I mean you didn't need to go that far to be unable to win the last fight, but that deserves respect.

Which is why I really agree with the Jeff Vogel blogposts upthread. My character was, objectively, crap. But she didn't know that and I didn't know that*, so she was badass and awesome and had a character and personality that I liked. On default difficulty, a player should be able to half-ass their way through an RPG without planning, because most people's first trip through an RPG isn't going to be about planning and theorycrafting, it's going to be about taking anything that looks cool as it becomes available. Harder difficulty levels can do whatever they like; but the default should be possible to do without any kind of forward thought at all. The player should be invested in the story, not the mechanics.

*I didn't even realize that it was a d20 game or what that meant until well after the fact; I honestly just took the random numbers of feats and skills and ability points the game threw at me as given. It kinda irked me that you had to become a Jedi, because the force powers cannibalize your feat slots. :smallfrown:

[GloatingSwine]

Which is why I really agree with the Jeff Vogel blogposts upthread. My character was, objectively, crap. But she didn't know that and I didn't know that*, so she was badass and awesome and had a character and personality that I liked. On default difficulty, a player should be able to half-ass their way through an RPG without planning, because most people's first trip through an RPG isn't going to be about planning and theorycrafting, it's going to be about taking anything that looks cool as it becomes available. Harder difficulty levels can do whatever they like; but the default should be possible to do without any kind of forward thought at all. The player should be invested in the story, not the mechanics.


If the player isn't invested in the mechanics as well as the story then the mechanics are crap and the game should have better ones. (D20 mechanics are crap for videogames).

Anyway, I still vehemently disagree that the default difficulty of a game, RPG or otherwise, should be so abjectly unchallenging that the player has to try to fail (which is what being able to bimble through with a bad build and mediocre strategy entails, if you can still win under those conditions you would have to try to not win), it should just communicate its mechanics well enough that even on the first time through the player can build their character properly (because they know what that means in the system at hand) and uses competent tactics because the game gave them enough information to figure out what those were.

[Tengu_temp]

This thread again. Yeah, you don't like grinding, we get it. Nobody does. There's no need to build a whole philosophy around it. Especially if that philosophy includes you being the Last Honest Gamer Who Cares About Skill.

[Lheticus]

I wasn't making that assumption. I was simply identifying the boundaries of the optimization problem: balancing between the freedom allowed to the player to complete the game at their own pace, the importance/satisfaction of leveling/gearing up, and the ability to design encounters that produce playable battles for the resulting variety of player characters. Identifying boundaries necessitates discussing endpoint cases.


It was an excellent example for the point I was making: that there is a significant difference between being playable in design and being playable in practice. And again, I attach no value judgment to your response to that boss--such a judgment would be irrelevant to my point.

If you're discussing optimization issues as a whole, you're going beyond the boundaries of what I was trying to say--but I mean, that's clearly happened anyway and frankly there's nothing wrong with that. :) My statement I assumed you based yours off of was intended to detail my own personal preference, not what I believe to be a systemic objective problem.

[Lethologica]

This thread again. Yeah, you don't like grinding, we get it. Nobody does. There's no need to build a whole philosophy around it. Especially if that philosophy includes you being the Last Honest Gamer Who Cares About Skill.
Note: If nobody likes grinding and yet there are lots of games with grinding, grinding is entangled with something players like.


If you're discussing optimization issues as a whole, you're going beyond the boundaries of what I was trying to say--but I mean, that's clearly happened anyway and frankly there's nothing wrong with that. :) My statement I assumed you based yours off of was intended to detail my own personal preference, not what I believe to be a systemic objective problem.
Which is why I'm arguing that the fulfillment of your personal preferences is particularly challenging for the genre of games you're discussing, due to a systemic objective conflict between game design goals for this genre.

[warty goblin]

If the player isn't invested in the mechanics as well as the story then the mechanics are crap and the game should have better ones. (D20 mechanics are crap for videogames).

Anyway, I still vehemently disagree that the default difficulty of a game, RPG or otherwise, should be so abjectly unchallenging that the player has to try to fail (which is what being able to bimble through with a bad build and mediocre strategy entails, if you can still win under those conditions you would have to try to not win), it should just communicate its mechanics well enough that even on the first time through the player can build their character properly (because they know what that means in the system at hand) and uses competent tactics because the game gave them enough information to figure out what those were.

Or, you know, the player doesn't actually care that much about mechanics, good or bad. There are certainly genres where I don't care much about mechanics; I absolutely love a certain breed of really bad third person hack and slash games. Do I care that I play them terribly? No. Do I care that they're crap, the sort of things that gives the sort of person who oh so helpfully brings up Dark Souls all the time a coronary? No. I want to cleave orcs with a moderately improbable axe.

[Zevox]

This thread again. Yeah, you don't like grinding, we get it. Nobody does.
That's actually not true at all. Just to name an obvious one, the Disgaea series goes out of its way to make the possibility of nigh-infinite grinding a feature. The level cap is 9,999 (and I think that went up in more recent entries), even though you only need characters at something like 80 or so to beat the main story, and random dungeons which can be filled with enemies of any power range enable literally endless grinding and opponents to actually challenge you even at massive levels if you so desire. And that's before touching the reincarnation feature, which lets you reset a character to level 1, but with a stat boost based on what their stats were before. There are stat caps that can be reached if you reincarnate and grind enough, but for almost everyone they're basically just a theory, not anything you'll ever actually reach. And this is definitely something that some fans of the series like about it, and which the series continues to expand on as it grows.

[Daimbert]

Or, you know, the player doesn't actually care that much about mechanics, good or bad. There are certainly genres where I don't care much about mechanics; I absolutely love a certain breed of really bad third person hack and slash games. Do I care that I play them terribly? No. Do I care that they're crap, the sort of things that gives the sort of person who oh so helpfully brings up Dark Souls all the time a coronary? No. I want to cleave orcs with a moderately improbable axe.

But that's what "Easy" difficulty is for ... and "Easy" should not be the default.

In my opinion, any good game should have at least three difficulties: Easy, Normal and Hard. Easy should be for people who either don't want a challenge, don't really want to learn the mechanics, or aren't going to be good at that sort of game (so, for me, fighting games are like that). Hard should be for people who are either really good at that sort of game or are willing to put the time in to learning it or want a challenge. The default should be "Normal", where you have to put some effort into the mechanics but don't have to be great at them to succeed.

The default should not be a cakewalk for someone who doesn't know how to play the game. You should have to at least know a bit about the mechanics and be good at the game to be able to go through it on the default setting and never die.

[Hamste]

Note: If nobody likes grinding and yet there are lots of games with grinding, grinding is entangled with something players like.

I think it is length. No one wants to pay full game prices only to get a game that is 5 hours long unless the game is ridiculously good. However, extending the story isn't really an option a lot of the time as it can make the game feel long winded. One way is to make the game replayable by means of decisions, if people replay the game just to see how their choices changed they gain a lot of value. This is the entire basis of interactive fiction. Another way is adding more content like side-quests which do not add to the story line. It gives the player more to do with out affecting the story line all that much (or making it affect the story line a lot but not needed to progress). The third way is score or collectibles that make someone want to search for them or retry levels. Often used but most of the time it only works if in games where the highscore is the main goal as it is quite easy to just ignore. Finally, is grinding not only is it the easiest to implement (just change exp gain slightly or raise the boss level) it also can be the easiest to adjust the estimated time around.

Grinding makes sense for extending the playability. Many people simply don't care about score or collectibles, won't replay a game they won and only so many side quests can be added before they start detracting from the actual story line.

[Psyren]

But that's what "Easy" difficulty is for ... and "Easy" should not be the default.

In my opinion, any good game should have at least three difficulties: Easy, Normal and Hard. Easy should be for people who either don't want a challenge, don't really want to learn the mechanics, or aren't going to be good at that sort of game (so, for me, fighting games are like that). Hard should be for people who are either really good at that sort of game or are willing to put the time in to learning it or want a challenge. The default should be "Normal", where you have to put some effort into the mechanics but don't have to be great at them to succeed.

The default should not be a cakewalk for someone who doesn't know how to play the game. You should have to at least know a bit about the mechanics and be good at the game to be able to go through it on the default setting and never die.

I agree, this should be the bare minimum approach to game difficulty - and you should not be locked into a specific difficulty once the game is already underway; you should be able to make it both easier or harder to tailor the challenge to your changing mastery of the mechanics.

Of course, there are in fact better ways (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM2dDF4B9a4) of more organically letting the player set their difficulty as they play, rather than just picking choices from a menu without context, but those can also be more difficult to design, so failing that I'll take the "select difficulty" option.

[Merellis]

That's actually not true at all. Just to name an obvious one, the Disgaea series goes out of its way to make the possibility of nigh-infinite grinding a feature. The level cap is 9,999 (and I think that went up in more recent entries), even though you only need characters at something like 80 or so to beat the main story, and random dungeons which can be filled with enemies of any power range enable literally endless grinding and opponents to actually challenge you even at massive levels if you so desire. And that's before touching the reincarnation feature, which lets you reset a character to level 1, but with a stat boost based on what their stats were before. There are stat caps that can be reached if you reincarnate and grind enough, but for almost everyone they're basically just a theory, not anything you'll ever actually reach. And this is definitely something that some fans of the series like about it, and which the series continues to expand on as it grows.

Phantom Brave did that hilariously well as well. "I summon a random dungeon that's around my level and has 100 floors of death, might have some crazy god at the bottom and a legendary item, or diddly squat. LETS DO THIS."

I still love the fact you can make upgrade a rock into being a deadly weapon, or a bush... or a fish.

Or y'know, beat the enemy while wielding the corpse of a comrade! :smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

But that's what "Easy" difficulty is for ... and "Easy" should not be the default.

In my opinion, any good game should have at least three difficulties: Easy, Normal and Hard. Easy should be for people who either don't want a challenge, don't really want to learn the mechanics, or aren't going to be good at that sort of game (so, for me, fighting games are like that). Hard should be for people who are either really good at that sort of game or are willing to put the time in to learning it or want a challenge. The default should be "Normal", where you have to put some effort into the mechanics but don't have to be great at them to succeed.

The default should not be a cakewalk for someone who doesn't know how to play the game. You should have to at least know a bit about the mechanics and be good at the game to be able to go through it on the default setting and never die.

Nah, I prefer Easy to be the mode for people who've basically never played a game - or this sort of game - before and struggle with the controls and so on. Medium's for a low-key coast through it assuming a very basic level of competency, and Hard is for people who want a challenge.

[Daimbert]

Nah, I prefer Easy to be the mode for people who've basically never played a game - or this sort of game - before and struggle with the controls and so on. Medium's for a low-key coast through it assuming a very basic level of competency, and Hard is for people who want a challenge.

What about people who have more than a very basic level of competency but don't want a challenge?

In my opinion, the default setting for a game, the setting you get if you don't even think about difficulty, should be one that if you are generally pretty good at the mechanics of the game, you'll do well, but if you aren't, then it will be a challenge. This encourages people playing the game without thinking about difficulty to learn the game mechanics and pay attention to them. If you only want to be basically competent, switch to a lower level, and if you want to have to pay really close attention to mechanics and be skilled at the game, switch to a higher one.


Of course, there are in fact better ways of more organically letting the player set their difficulty as they play, rather than just picking choices from a menu without context, but those can also be more difficult to design, so failing that I'll take the "select difficulty" option.

I agree with you on being able to change the difficulty in the middle of the game. But I don't really agree with the example of Dark Souls 2, at least as given in the video (I've never played those games). The mechanisms there sound a lot like either optimization or exploits, and so a player mastering the mechanisms will indeed probably take the sorcerer role and buy the ring and bring friends. That means that people really good at the game will be the ones having it "easier", which isn't what was desired. And you should never have to rely on things that are explicitly called "bugs" [grin].

That being said, there is something to what was said, although likely in-game, mechanical, organic styles probably lend themselves better to a choice to style of play than of difficulty. Are you good at kiting? Take a ranged character. Have good reflexes? Take a melee character. And so on. Something like we saw in Gauntlet: all of them had different abilities, which may or may not lead to the game being easier (if you choose the all-rounder, for example).

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I generally like Medium to be my "I can play these sorts of games, I've played them before, so give me a challenge and push me to try harder". I think of it as the "normal" setting--for people who aren't super-dedicated to that sort of game, but who also aren't new to it. I should be able to beat it with persistence and good play (learning a lot along the way), but it shouldn't be a cakewalk.

[Knaight]

In my opinion, any good game should have at least three difficulties: Easy, Normal and Hard. Easy should be for people who either don't want a challenge, don't really want to learn the mechanics, or aren't going to be good at that sort of game (so, for me, fighting games are like that). Hard should be for people who are either really good at that sort of game or are willing to put the time in to learning it or want a challenge. The default should be "Normal", where you have to put some effort into the mechanics but don't have to be great at them to succeed.

I'd disagree with needing multiple difficulty levels. There are games where that sort of thing makes sense, but then there are things like some puzzle games, where multiple difficulties would often require tripling the amount of content (rather than tweaking some numbers). SpaceChem is a good game, there's no real way to get difficulty levels in there - though it does have a number of optional levels and efficiency challenges.

[Psyren]

I agree with you on being able to change the difficulty in the middle of the game. But I don't really agree with the example of Dark Souls 2, at least as given in the video (I've never played those games). The mechanisms there sound a lot like either optimization or exploits, and so a player mastering the mechanisms will indeed probably take the sorcerer role and buy the ring and bring friends. That means that people really good at the game will be the ones having it "easier", which isn't what was desired. And you should never have to rely on things that are explicitly called "bugs" [grin].

That's just it - I don't consider it an "exploit" to use things the designers intentionally included in the game, such as the ring they mentioned that keeps you from losing your souls. Diablo 3 has a similar mechanic - in hardcore you die permanently, costing you hours, days, or even months of playtime. They included a passive mechanic for most classes that automatically activates to save you if you die, as well as an amulet that will do the same thing as the DS2 ring (i.e. sacrifice itself to save you.) You can even use these mechanics in normal mode, against bosses, where if you die you need to restart the fight (though of course there, you're only losing minutes as opposed to days.)

The only thing the video called a "bug" was the inefficient pathfinding for certain kitable monsters, and they only used that term because it's unclear whether it was intentional or not. For all we know, it could have been; after all, a lot of the things you fight in that game are big and dumb/mindless, and thus their inability to path around various obstacles efficiently could be reasonable. Certainly the devs are in no hurry to patch it.

As for the folks who are really good at the game - those will be the ones encouraged to experiment with the harder mechanics, like melee combat, once they have a handle on the other aspects of the game (like collecting and retaining souls.) Thus they are empowered to modulate their own difficulty curve organically - just as planned.

[Rodin]

I seem to recall that Max Payne had an interesting approach to difficulty. It looked at how well you were doing - if you were mopping up enemies left and right and taking no damage, it would slowly start increasing the difficulty until you were having problems.

[veti]

What about people who have more than a very basic level of competency but don't want a challenge?

There's no limit to the number of different difficulty levels you can have.

What is hard, however, from the designer's perspective, is to calibrate them properly. Someone who has trained themselves to optimise the heck out of everything and millisecond reflexes - may find your game a cakewalk, while others who take a more casual approach are still finding it unbeatable. In general, I think the modern thinking is that more casual gamers are where the market is at, so the "serious" gamers will just have to suck it up. But it's very hard to playtest that kind of thing properly.

(About the only realistic approach is an "open beta" involving tens of thousands of players, but that's horribly expensive - it means you basically have to put almost as much marketing into the beta as you would into launching a finished game - and it means you have a massive problem in sifting through the feedback. Minecraft is the only recent game I can think of that's pulled this off.)

[Daimbert]

That's just it - I don't consider it an "exploit" to use things the designers intentionally included in the game, such as the ring they mentioned that keeps you from losing your souls. Diablo 3 has a similar mechanic - in hardcore you die permanently, costing you hours, days, or even months of playtime. They included a passive mechanic for most classes that automatically activates to save you if you die, as well as an amulet that will do the same thing as the DS2 ring (i.e. sacrifice itself to save you.) You can even use these mechanics in normal mode, against bosses, where if you die you need to restart the fight (though of course there, you're only losing minutes as opposed to days.)

The only thing the video called a "bug" was the inefficient pathfinding for certain kitable monsters, and they only used that term because it's unclear whether it was intentional or not. For all we know, it could have been; after all, a lot of the things you fight in that game are big and dumb/mindless, and thus their inability to path around various obstacles efficiently could be reasonable. Certainly the devs are in no hurry to patch it.

Yeah, it was only the pathfinding issues that I call exploits. The ring is what I'd call simple mastery of mechanics, as unless it is inefficient in some way people who have mastered the game will always have one on them, just in case. Sure, they might deliberately gimp themselves, but not finding/purchasing an exceptionally useful item that prevents a loss of time and effort doesn't seem like something that someone who understands and is good at the game would do.

The same thing applies to classes; if a ranged class works better, shouldn't better players choose those classes? Sure, they can try to challenge themselves, but someone who just knows the game well and knows that that class works better will probably choose it.


As for the folks who are really good at the game - those will be the ones encouraged to experiment with the harder mechanics, like melee combat, once they have a handle on the other aspects of the game (like collecting and retaining souls.) Thus they are empowered to modulate their own difficulty curve organically - just as planned.

Sure, but the people who will know that one class is better than another or that certain items are better than others or are really useful are the people who would also know what equipment and builds are best. The people who need it to be easier are the people who either won't bother to research that, or will choose a melee-focused character because it fits the role they want to play better instead of because it's optimized. That's why I think that these are more optimization than tweaking difficulty, which is not what we want. Tailoring to play style is more in line with what I think these things should be after.


I'd disagree with needing multiple difficulty levels. There are games where that sort of thing makes sense, but then there are things like some puzzle games, where multiple difficulties would often require tripling the amount of content (rather than tweaking some numbers). SpaceChem is a good game, there's no real way to get difficulty levels in there - though it does have a number of optional levels and efficiency challenges.

Some games won't be able to do difficulty levels, sure, but I think those are few and far between. Even puzzle games can add hint options and the like on that, although for the most part that's been replaced by the Internet. Most games can find some way -- either internally or externally -- to let people tailor their frustration levels to the level they can live with.

[Psyren]

Yeah, it was only the pathfinding issues that I call exploits. The ring is what I'd call simple mastery of mechanics, as unless it is inefficient in some way people who have mastered the game will always have one on them, just in case. Sure, they might deliberately gimp themselves, but not finding/purchasing an exceptionally useful item that prevents a loss of time and effort doesn't seem like something that someone who understands and is good at the game would do.

Well for starters, the ring does absolutely nothing if you are good enough to simply not die, making it a paperweight. And second, is is actually worse than doing nothing, since it is taking up a ring slot that could have gone to something that boosts your damage output or speed in some way, letting you get through the game faster. So there is plenty of reason for a skilled player to not want to wear it beyond the perverse desire to "gimp themselves" that you are proposing here.

The D3 amulet is similar. Yeah it's very handy if you're at risk of death and/or trying to gear up, but there are many other extremely powerful amulets out there (including item sets) that you are sacrificing in order to wear it. And that is the best tradeoff - survivability vs. offense/clear speed, because the latter is what attracts the skilled players and the ones looking for challenge, while the former attracts those not.



The same thing applies to classes; if a ranged class works better, shouldn't better players choose those classes? Sure, they can try to challenge themselves, but someone who just knows the game well and knows that that class works better will probably choose it.

You have to define "works better" - the ranged class is better at one thing (avoiding hits, since the majority of monsters are melee) - but that does not make it better overall. Melee classes might kill faster, or offer forms of engagement for the player (tanking bosses for others, or having to master the dodging system) that archers and spellcasters don't.



Sure, but the people who will know that one class is better than another or that certain items are better than others or are really useful are the people who would also know what equipment and builds are best. The people who need it to be easier are the people who either won't bother to research that, or will choose a melee-focused character because it fits the role they want to play better instead of because it's optimized. That's why I think that these are more optimization than tweaking difficulty, which is not what we want. Tailoring to play style is more in line with what I think these things should be after.

I don't think it's some large logical leap that, if the majority of the harder monsters in the game are melee, that playing melee yourself will make it harder. Nearly every monster in the game is modeled at twice your size or more - expecting to trade blows easily when your weapon has the relative proportions of a toothpick is a good way to get some notions disabused. This is an affordance for the player - if a monster was the size of a flea but still hit like a truck, you might have a point here, but that's not the case.

[Lheticus]

All of my concerns by now are satisfied, I just thought I'd put in that I don't seem to recall any of my gaming threads evolving so far beyond the initial stuff I was saying. This is pretty cool.:smallsmile:

[Zevox]

Well for starters, the ring does absolutely nothing if you are good enough to simply not die, making it a paperweight. And second, is is actually worse than doing nothing, since it is taking up a ring slot that could have gone to something that boosts your damage output or speed in some way, letting you get through the game faster. So there is plenty of reason for a skilled player to not want to wear it beyond the perverse desire to "gimp themselves" that you are proposing here.
In addition, from what I've been told recently over in the Dark Souls thread, every time that ring gets used it breaks, and requires 3k souls to repair. Early on in the game that's not a trivial amount to throw out every time you might get killed, so the ring may not even be worth using until you get far enough into the game that you don't mind that.

[Daimbert]

There's no limit to the number of different difficulty levels you can have.

I agree; that's one of the first comments I made. I don't have anything to add, just wanted to point out that we pretty much agree here.


Well for starters, the ring does absolutely nothing if you are good enough to simply not die, making it a paperweight. And second, is is actually worse than doing nothing, since it is taking up a ring slot that could have gone to something that boosts your damage output or speed in some way, letting you get through the game faster. So there is plenty of reason for a skilled player to not want to wear it beyond the perverse desire to "gimp themselves" that you are proposing here.

Well, when I say "gimp" I really meant here "Putting yourself at a disadvantage in order to get more challenge out of the game". But the issue here is that this is proposed as a way of calibrating the difficulty of the game, but that only works if the ring is, in general, overcoming something that makes the game harder. I know nothing about any of the Dark Souls games, but the way you put it here someone who wasn't as good at the game might, at higher levels, find that the game is HARDER using that ring, because if they took on the extra damage or speed they'd die less often -- being able to, say, kill the thing or run away from it well enough to kite properly -- and all the ring does is make the extra deaths they have cost less individually. It might cost them much more souls and time in the long run. On the other hand, a really good player might want to use it because they prefer a much more risk-oriented style -- fighting above their level, for example -- and the ring mitigates their losses when those risks don't pay off.

Unless the ring is clearly something that is better and makes the game easier, then it is, as I said, about play style more than about difficulty, and that's what the guy in the video was claiming these things did.

To give an example, I'd consider the Plumes of Dusk in Persona 3 (and 4, I think) to be items that reduce the difficulty of the game, because they restore you and all of your party to full health in the middle of the battle if you happen to die. If they were generally available in the game -- even for a cost -- I'd expect every player to have one if they could, just in case they died. That does assume that there's no trade off (there isn't in the Personas, but they're only given out based on the difficulty you select), but as soon as you introduce trade-offs, you turn it away from difficulty and towards play style.


You have to define "works better" - the ranged class is better at one thing (avoiding hits, since the majority of monsters are melee) - but that does not make it better overall. Melee classes might kill faster, or offer forms of engagement for the player (tanking bosses for others, or having to master the dodging system) that archers and spellcasters don't.

If they aren't just better, then it isn't the case that selecting them will make the game less difficult. It'll, again, come down to play style. A player who happens to be good at the dodging system but is terrible at kiting will find a melee class easier for them, which goes against the advice to take a ranged class in order to reduce the difficulty of the game. Again, then, this comes down to play style, not difficulty.


I don't think it's some large logical leap that, if the majority of the harder monsters in the game are melee, that playing melee yourself will make it harder. Nearly every monster in the game is modeled at twice your size or more - expecting to trade blows easily when your weapon has the relative proportions of a toothpick is a good way to get some notions disabused.

Although there's nothing in that to indicate that melee is going to be definitely harder, as you might expect them to have ways to deal with ranged attacks as well, or powerful ranged attacks too, or since you select class at the start (I think) that there won't be massively hard ranged opponents as well. It isn't that obvious for a rookie player that going with a ranged class is the way to go to make the game easier before they get too frustrated with a melee build and quit the game.

More importantly, though, this leaves out that other group that might want the difficulty to be easier: those who are going for a character concept rather than for an ideal build. For those people, telling them to change their character from a melee character to a ranged one and change what might be an important part of their concept isn't going to fly. They don't want the game to be easier, but want to be able to play their character without having to have the top skills. An in-game mechanic like the one mentioned places the difficulty slider on specific builds and skills, which is not going to work for those people, and so other ways to reduce the difficulty would be required.

In my opinion, it's really hard to do difficulty through in-game choices and mechanics, and the Dark Souls 2 example doesn't seem like a good way to try. I'd rather that the in-game mechanics aim more at letting people play the way they want to play -- which will help with difficulty, but provides a much broader appeal than just doing that -- while still having explicit menu-driven difficulties to address difficulty specifically.


In addition, from what I've been told recently over in the Dark Souls thread, every time that ring gets used it breaks, and requires 3k souls to repair. Early on in the game that's not a trivial amount to throw out every time you might get killed, so the ring may not even be worth using until you get far enough into the game that you don't mind that.

At which point it wouldn't be all the helpful as a way to tweak the difficulty, if for a significant part of the game it might not actually save you much, if anything. You'd be better off with that damage or defense or speed ring that helped you avoid dying instead of it.

[Psyren]

Well, when I say "gimp" I really meant here "Putting yourself at a disadvantage in order to get more challenge out of the game". But the issue here is that this is proposed as a way of calibrating the difficulty of the game, but that only works if the ring is, in general, overcoming something that makes the game harder. I know nothing about any of the Dark Souls games, but the way you put it here someone who wasn't as good at the game might, at higher levels, find that the game is HARDER using that ring, because if they took on the extra damage or speed they'd die less often -- being able to, say, kill the thing or run away from it well enough to kite properly -- and all the ring does is make the extra deaths they have cost less individually. It might cost them much more souls and time in the long run. On the other hand, a really good player might want to use it because they prefer a much more risk-oriented style -- fighting above their level, for example -- and the ring mitigates their losses when those risks don't pay off.

Unless the ring is clearly something that is better and makes the game easier, then it is, as I said, about play style more than about difficulty, and that's what the guy in the video was claiming these things did.


But that's the whole point - "play style" and "difficulty" should not be living on separate islands and occasionally sending each other a postcard. Good mechanics should allow the player to dynamically align the two as much as possible - especially since neither difficulty nor play style are static, they evolve as the player tries new approaches and progresses through the game.

This is why the ring is a good mechanic; it serves a single, simple function, that can be applied in multiple ways. Functionally, it makes the game easier for those prone to die - which as you mentioned, actually includes members from both the less-skilled group, and those from the more-skilled group who are taking greater risks. And the tradeoff with killing efficiency makes it less attractive to those not prone to die - the skilled players who are not taking as many risks, and the less skilled players who are less concerned with clear speed and thus inherently playing more cautiously. Ergo, you can modulate your own difficulty curve as you move among these four groups just by the simple mechanic of wearing or not wearing the ring, rather than the less intuitive and less palatable approach of selecting from a menu, particularly resorting to the menu (or worse, having it come up unbidden) after you have died a few times.



Although there's nothing in that to indicate that melee is going to be definitely harder, as you might expect them to have ways to deal with ranged attacks as well, or powerful ranged attacks too, or since you select class at the start (I think) that there won't be massively hard ranged opponents as well.

If a guy is standing over there with a massive axe, which feels riskier - standing within reach of his axe, or standing clearly outside of his reach? I'm not sure of your logic here.



More importantly, though, this leaves out that other group that might want the difficulty to be easier: those who are going for a character concept rather than for an ideal build. For those people, telling them to change their character from a melee character to a ranged one and change what might be an important part of their concept isn't going to fly. They don't want the game to be easier, but want to be able to play their character without having to have the top skills. An in-game mechanic like the one mentioned places the difficulty slider on specific builds and skills, which is not going to work for those people, and so other ways to reduce the difficulty would be required.

Actually, there is an "easier option" for the guy who wants to play melee too - i.e. using a shield. Now, I'm not claiming it's perfect - even the shield-using guys have to learn to dodge - but it's still an intuitive way of modulating your own difficulty curve without resorting to a menu or slider.



In my opinion, it's really hard to do difficulty through in-game choices and mechanics, and the Dark Souls 2 example doesn't seem like a good way to try. I'd rather that the in-game mechanics aim more at letting people play the way they want to play -- which will help with difficulty, but provides a much broader appeal than just doing that -- while still having explicit menu-driven difficulties to address difficulty specifically.

I think the only thing we really agree on is that it's not easy to do. But I think a combination of the menu during gameplay and the mechanics-based is the best way to go.

[Daimbert]

I think the only thing we really agree on is that it's not easy to do. But I think a combination of the menu during gameplay and the mechanics-based is the best way to go.

Actually, I think we agree that the things done in-game with the mechanics and a menu based difficulty approach are both good. I just see the in-game things as things that we should be thinking of as play style adjustments -- making the play style viable for the game -- and not aimed at reducing the overall difficulty of the game, with other things aimed specifically at lowering the difficulty. That's not the impression I got from the video; he was pushing them as things that reduced the difficulty, not as things that let you play the way you want to play. I'm opposed to either introducing items aimed solely at making the game easier, or pushing people to make play style choices on the grounds that it will make the game easier overall. Again taking these examples, I see them as things that might make a game easier or harder for a SPECIFIC person, but not something that makes the game easier overall. Which is good, but shouldn't be sold as something designed or aimed to reduce difficulty, which is my impression of what the guy in the video was pushing them as.

In short, my main view is that doing the things listed in that video don't take away your responsibility to manage difficulty if you're trying to, because they don't actually do that ... mostly because anything done in mechanics that doesn't involve a trade-off is something that anyone who masters the tactics is going to use, too. Not everyone will play on "Easy", but everyone will buy a Plume of Dusk if there are no trade offs for doing that; at that point, it just makes sense.

Now let me back up to a couple of small points:


But that's the whole point - "play style" and "difficulty" should not be living on separate islands and occasionally sending each other a postcard. Good mechanics should allow the player to dynamically align the two as much as possible - especially since neither difficulty nor play style are static, they evolve as the player tries new approaches and progresses through the game.

I agree. Since they let you tailor your play experience, they allow specific people to say that choosing a different class or certain skills will make it easier for THEM. But to me that's not a general difficulty mechanism, and that's what it seemed to me that the video was advocating: that these items are there and suffice to make the game easier in general, which if true was a problem and ultimately turned out to be false.


If a guy is standing over there with a massive axe, which feels riskier - standing within reach of his axe, or standing clearly outside of his reach? I'm not sure of your logic here.

Class is chosen at the beginning of the game, unless I'm really wrong about that, which means that unless you know that overall there aren't many ranged attackers or that the guy with the massive axe doesn't have some ability that can stop kiting -- holds, for example -- you don't know that a ranged class is going to be better for you to play in the game, or that it's going to be generally easier as a ranged attacker than as a melee attacker throughout the entire game. And if it isn't better in general, then it's not a good suggestion for a general way to reduce the difficulty.

EDIT: I guess the way to summarize my objection to the video is that at the end he says that if you want an easier experience in DS 2 you should do all of those things, which as it turns out don't actually make it easier necessarily and if it did pretty much everyone would be using them because mastering the mechanics means learning the little tricks that make the game easier or more manageable. It's that kind of list that I'm trying to avoid.

[Psyren]

In short, my main view is that doing the things listed in that video don't take away your responsibility to manage difficulty if you're trying to, because they don't actually do that ... mostly because anything done in mechanics that doesn't involve a trade-off is something that anyone who masters the tactics is going to use, too. Not everyone will play on "Easy", but everyone will buy a Plume of Dusk if there are no trade offs for doing that; at that point, it just makes sense.

But those things do involve a trade-off - so what's the problem then?

If it was a slotless item I would agree.



I agree. Since they let you tailor your play experience, they allow specific people to say that choosing a different class or certain skills will make it easier for THEM. But to me that's not a general difficulty mechanism, and that's what it seemed to me that the video was advocating: that these items are there and suffice to make the game easier in general, which if true was a problem and ultimately turned out to be false.

I don't recall anyone saying doing those things would make the game "easier in general." What they let you do is get through the game easier - if you're, say, playing for story, or to practice all the content before a tougher playthrough, these are just as legitimate as a difficulty menu, and less obtrusive.



Class is chosen at the beginning of the game, unless I'm really wrong about that, which means that unless you know that overall there aren't many ranged attackers or that the guy with the massive axe doesn't have some ability that can stop kiting -- holds, for example -- you don't know that a ranged class is going to be better for you to play in the game, or that it's going to be generally easier as a ranged attacker than as a melee attacker throughout the entire game. And if it isn't better in general, then it's not a good suggestion for a general way to reduce the difficulty.

Here's the thing though - if the majority of enemies are melee, you know melee will be harder for the reasons I stated. But if the majority of enemies are ranged, guess what - melee is still harder, (all else being equal) because now you're taking hits before you can even close to business range. So melee being harder should be an assumption, unless that person is totally new to action games or ARPGs in general.



EDIT: I guess the way to summarize my objection to the video is that at the end he says that if you want an easier experience in DS 2 you should do all of those things, which as it turns out don't actually make it easier necessarily and if it did pretty much everyone would be using them because mastering the mechanics means learning the little tricks that make the game easier or more manageable. It's that kind of list that I'm trying to avoid.

Your assumption that "everyone would be doing it because it's easier" is what I take objection to. This assumes that everyone's objective playing the game is to make it as easy as possible, and that isn't true for any game, least of all for a game whose difficulty is actually a selling point/expectation.

[Lethologica]

Melee usually gets compensation for being melee, though, like better armor or mobility. Sure, a decrease in range is strictly harder if all else is kept equal, but when does that happen?

[Psyren]

Melee usually gets compensation for being melee, though, like better armor or mobility. Sure, a decrease in range is strictly harder if all else is kept equal, but when does that happen?

You still have considerations to expect to compensate for that inherent weakness though; for example, melee might get access to better armor, but the onus is then on the player to acquire that armor. Or they get a dodge system, but the onus is on the player to learn how to use it effectively.

[Lethologica]

You still have considerations to expect to compensate for that inherent weakness though; for example, melee might get access to better armor, but the onus is then on the player to acquire that armor. Or they get a dodge system, but the onus is on the player to learn how to use it effectively.
That onus is not inherent, just a circumstance of the particular mechanics I chose. Let melee classes take half damage from all sources (or, more commonly, have twice the HP). Zero onus, except having to walk an extra 500 units to batter the enemy into submission. Or make the ranged character land skillshots. Or have enemies behave differently in melee than at range. Or give the melee character a 1HKO move. All of these mechanics occur in actual games; I'm not just pulling random ideas out of the sky here.

Game designers have a lot of control over the balance of game difficulty between melee and ranged characters. It is not clear that most game designers choose to control that balance such that melee is more difficult than ranged. Therefore, it should not be assumed that for a given game, it's harder to play the melee characters than the ranged characters.

[Knaight]

Game designers have a lot of control over the balance of game difficulty between melee and ranged characters. It is not clear that most game designers choose to control that balance such that melee is more difficult than ranged. Therefore, it should not be assumed that for a given game, it's harder to play the melee characters than the ranged characters.

On the other hand, when there's next to no ranged opposition, the game is replete with difficult terrain to cross, and enemies are frequently somewhat slow it's pretty clear that ranged options are likely better. This is particularly true when the game plays up your durability being pretty bad, and most enemies having pretty limited durability. Add in the way even the faster melee weapons slow as molasses. That ranged is easier in Dark Souls doesn't need any specialized knowledge, the game telegraphs it to it.

[Rodin]

On the other hand, when there's next to no ranged opposition, the game is replete with difficult terrain to cross, and enemies are frequently somewhat slow it's pretty clear that ranged options are likely better. This is particularly true when the game plays up your durability being pretty bad, and most enemies having pretty limited durability. Add in the way even the faster melee weapons slow as molasses. That ranged is easier in Dark Souls doesn't need any specialized knowledge, the game telegraphs it to it.

Although interestingly, this is only true of spells. A pure Bow build is going to struggle for significant chunks of the game and is definitely weaker than most pure melee builds. Damage isn't great, you don't get to use a shield, you can't deliver counter attacks. And only a couple of the bows are even viable for use as a pure build - most of them have draw times which are too long for practical close quarters combat.

Spells are mostly just OP.

[Lethologica]

On the other hand, when there's next to no ranged opposition, the game is replete with difficult terrain to cross, and enemies are frequently somewhat slow it's pretty clear that ranged options are likely better. This is particularly true when the game plays up your durability being pretty bad, and most enemies having pretty limited durability. Add in the way even the faster melee weapons slow as molasses. That ranged is easier in Dark Souls doesn't need any specialized knowledge, the game telegraphs it to it.
Sure. And insofar as that's the case (keeping Rodin's reply in mind), it's the case because the designers of Dark Souls chose to balance it that way.

[Psyren]

Let melee classes take half damage from all sources (or, more commonly, have twice the HP). Zero onus, except having to walk an extra 500 units to batter the enemy into submission.

And while some games do balance the scales in this way, not all of them do. So it's not something players can take as red the same way they can expect, say, that bows or spells let them open up their assault from afar whiles swords and axes don't.

[Anteros]

I really don't like the idea that game difficulty should be directly tied to class type. Some people simply enjoy different playstyles than others. Simply because I want to play a mage, doesn't mean I want the game to be easier as a result, and simply because I want to play a warrior class doesn't necessarily mean I want things to be harder.

Each type of play style should have its own advantages and disadvantages. Making one style objectively superior is just lazy game design disquised as a feature.

[Daimbert]

But those things do involve a trade-off - so what's the problem then?

If it was a slotless item I would agree.

If it's a trade-off, then it's not a reliable way to reduce the difficulty of a game; the trade-off you make may make the game harder for you both in spots and overall. If you're using it as a means to reduce the difficulty, then there ought to be no trade-offs. And if it makes things easier in some places or conditions and harder in others, then only people who know this stuff and so learn the mechanics will know when to use it and when not to, which doesn't work as a way for people who don't want to learn the mechanics of the game and think about things to that level to make the game easier for them.


I don't recall anyone saying doing those things would make the game "easier in general." What they let you do is get through the game easier - if you're, say, playing for story, or to practice all the content before a tougher playthrough, these are just as legitimate as a difficulty menu, and less obtrusive.

Difficulty menus are designed to make the game easier in general, so these mechanisms simply CAN'T be a replacement for that if they don't do that. Also, I'm not sure what the difference between making the game easier in general and getting through the game easier is in your mind. To me, the main thrust are mechanisms that I can use to reduce the difficulty for me as I go through the game. That doesn't mean making it easier to get past one enemy or set of enemies, but essentially making it so that all enemies are easier than they would be otherwise. This is where I reject the idea of trade-offs, because they by definition make some parts or goals in the game harder and so at least require me to know when they make it easier and when they make it harder, and apply them correctly. This is precisely what I select an "Easy" difficulty to AVOID having to worry too much about.


Here's the thing though - if the majority of enemies are melee, you know melee will be harder for the reasons I stated. But if the majority of enemies are ranged, guess what - melee is still harder, (all else being equal) because now you're taking hits before you can even close to business range. So melee being harder should be an assumption, unless that person is totally new to action games or ARPGs in general.

In general in action games or in ARPGs, melee is not generally harder than ranged. For example, I manage quite well in X-Men: Legends playing Wolverine and letting the other characters do whatever. Melee characters in ARPGs usually have skills that let them close in on targets quickly (a de facto ranged attack that moves them into position for their other melee skills) or have other benefits that allow them to get inside easily, if the classes and characters are at all balanced. In the specific game, you don't know that most of the enemies are vulnerable to ranged characters until you've played it for a while or looked it up in the FAQs or forums. And the default assumption in all games is that all characters are viable unless the game tells you otherwise.

And, I mean, the game CAN tell you otherwise, if they've written it that way, by saying that one class or another is relatively easier than another and what they do. Given the video, DS 2 probably doesn't do that, and it only sounds like ranged is easier because spells are overpowered, as others and even the video has said here. This is not something that a casual gamer is going to know about before they rage quit their melee character because they die too often.


Your assumption that "everyone would be doing it because it's easier" is what I take objection to. This assumes that everyone's objective playing the game is to make it as easy as possible, and that isn't true for any game, least of all for a game whose difficulty is actually a selling point/expectation.

Okay, I'll rephrase: everyone except those who are willing to take less efficient options in order to increase their difficulty level. But every player whose main goal is to build the most efficient character they can and die as little as possible will take all of the options that achieve that unless there are trade-offs such that it's only the most efficient option for certain play styles or conditions, which then to me means that they are tweaks for play style, not difficulty, and should be sold as that and not as tweaks for difficulty, meaning that you DON'T tell people, in general, as the video does, that if you are finding DS 2 too difficult do all of these things and it will make it easier, and then advocate that sort of strategy as the way that difficulty should be managed. In short, if you're going to manage difficulty, then do that directly, not as a side effect of making a particular play style viable, because that's the only way you're going to actually manage to achieve that.

[Lethologica]

And while some games do balance the scales in this way, not all of them do. So it's not something players can take as red the same way they can expect, say, that bows or spells let them open up their assault from afar whiles swords and axes don't.
Well, all games balance the scales in some way. I assume you mean that not all games balance the scales such that melee is adequately compensated for loss of range. That leaves us where I started: players can always assume that a loss of range is a strict disadvantage, but they cannot extrapolate from this assumption to reach the conclusion that ranged classes are stronger than melee classes. And let me add a further distinction between being stronger/weaker and being easier/harder to play--a distinction that you yourself made in reply to one of my earlier comments.

[Psyren]

Well, all games balance the scales in some way. I assume you mean that not all games balance the scales such that melee is adequately compensated for loss of range. That leaves us where I started: players can always assume that a loss of range is a strict disadvantage, but they cannot extrapolate from this assumption to reach the conclusion that ranged classes are stronger than melee classes.

What they can do is extrapolate that it will be harder unless the game compensates the melee for that inherent deficiency, and does so adequately. They can further extrapolate that if, like most RPGs, the game compensates through armor (i.e. the big strong fighter gets plate, while the skinny archer can't wear that), the onus will be on them to find and equip that plate.

Again, not exactly Special Relativity - these are all common sense deductions to make.

[Lethologica]

What they can do is extrapolate that it will be harder unless the game compensates the melee for that inherent deficiency, and does so adequately. They can further extrapolate that if, like most RPGs, the game compensates through armor (i.e. the big strong fighter gets plate, while the skinny archer can't wear that), the onus will be on them to find and equip that plate.

Again, not exactly Special Relativity - these are all common sense deductions to make.
Everyone has an onus to optimize on equipment--ranged characters simply optimize for different slots, enchantments, stats, etc. That is not even a significant difference, let alone a significant difference in how strong a character is, let alone a difference in how hard the character is to play. Moreover, while it is the case that many RPGs compensate through armor, it is not the case that most RPGs only compensate through armor.

As for "it will be harder unless," that's the point, isn't it? You have no firm basis for arguing the frequency or rarity of that "unless". So there is no reason to extrapolate from being melee vs. ranged to difficulty of play merely because melee characters are disadvantaged relative to the counterfactual where the melee characters had more range.

So these two arguments do not update my previous position significantly.