Open World Difficulty Difficulties

lackblogger said:

The most ideal way to 'solve' the Open World 'problem' (if you believe it to be a problem and you desperately hate Linear or Sandbox) as a developer is to create Chaptered Open Worlds. Chapter 1 for levels 1-5, Chapter 2 for levels 6-9, Chapter 3 for levels 10-12, Chapter 4 for levels 13-14, Chapter 5 for level 15.

Click to expand...

But that is no different from the way linear games work, they just don't always call them chapters… So your ideal solution for open world games really just amounts to not making them .

DArtagnan said:

Generally, what it takes to overcome a challenge is investment. Investment is based on interest, and that's where we set ourselves apart from mainstream gamers.

But I'm not talking about how to make the ideal mainstream game, I'm talking about how to make games WORTH the investment. I actually think more people from the mainstream would play sophisticated games if developers made them worth the investment.

But that's not what modern developers are doing, they're making games require minimal investment. Now, that's not to say they're making worthless games - they just don't go much beyond the expected minimum. Well, most don't.

That's the core problem I'm trying to point out.

Obviously, the reason we have that problem is that it's much, much harder to create a game worth investing in - than it is to create a game that doesn't require much of an investment, beyond the time it takes to play it.

Click to expand...

Great analysis. I don't think it is hard though to write software that requires users to make an investment in learning skills, it is just that as the games market has broadened the average gamer is more casual. Much the same thing has already happened in other areas of entertainment.

And surely the problem with open world games arises because they are totally statically designed - dungeons always appear in the same place with the same mobs sleeping in them, every time you play the game. What an open world really needs is dynamic generation and enemies that move around - if you are giving the bandits in some area a hard time, the bandit bosses should send out some tougher opposition etc.

The problem with most current games is that they are wholely designed around the player and are just reactive to player actions, which makes them feel so very static. A much better approach I reckon is to design worlds that have a life of their own. And the player's actions are just one of the things that have an effect in them.

There's simply not enough challenge and diversity in the recent big open world RPGs (and the same goes for MMOs like ESO) to keep exploring and doing everything until the end. I'm all for making them more interesting as you level up.

Roq said:

Great analysis. I don't think it is hard though to write software that requires users to make an investment in learning skills, it is just that as the games market has broadened the average gamer is more casual. Much the same thing has already happened in other areas of entertainment.

Click to expand...

The hard part is to do it in a balanced way with a reward that actually matches the investment required.

For my part, games like Dark Souls do the investment requirement part very well in terms of combat challenge, but they fail utterly to provide ample rewards. Essentially, the reward for defeating tough enemies is that you get to go on and defeat more tough enemies. A proper reward would be an expansion of the player arsenal, meaty story elements, etc.

I know some people thrive on the challenge alone, and I can appreciate that - but I don't think it makes sense to work hard unless you get to play hard.

In my mind, something like System Shock 2 on the harder difficulties has a strong balance of investment required versus rewards given. Because you keep expanding your arsenal as you overcome challenges, and you keep gaining access to new pieces of the puzzle. The game is also extremely rich in terms of exploration.

On top of that, System Shock 2 is also one of the best scavenging games I'm aware of, because every resource matters - and you're encouraged to explore and you absolutely don't want to waste what you find.

So, I suppose what I'm talking about is an open world game that's made up of that kind of content density and balance between investment required and rewards given.

And surely the problem with open world games arises because they are totally statically designed - dungeons always appear in the same place with the same mobs sleeping in them, every time you play the game. What an open world really needs is dynamic generation and enemies that move around - if you are giving the bandits in some area a hard time, the bandit bosses should send out some tougher opposition etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'd love to see a more dynamic landscape with lots of emergent gameplay. But, to stay realistic, I think we need to focus on what's doable right now. The next step would be a living, breathing world with roaming AIs that don't depend on scripts.

Roq said:

Great analysis. I don't think it is hard though to write software that requires users to make an investment in learning skills, it is just that as the games market has broadened the average gamer is more casual. Much the same thing has already happened in other areas of entertainment.



And surely the problem with open world games arises because they are totally statically designed - dungeons always appear in the same place with the same mobs sleeping in them, every time you play the game. What an open world really needs is dynamic generation and enemies that move around - if you are giving the bandits in some area a hard time, the bandit bosses should send out some tougher opposition etc.



The problem with most current games is that they are wholely designed around the player and are just reactive to player actions, which makes them feel so very static. A much better approach I reckon is to design worlds that have a life of their own. And the player's actions are just one of the things that have an effect in them.

Click to expand...

That's what soldak entertainment games are about...
Depths of peril works just like that.

It's not an open world as such though so it's easier to make and it's a hack and slash.

But those elements are in there.

I have given this issue a lot of thoughts.

My idea is to have a living world where creatures walk around, might attack each other and when winning one creature might die another might become stronger and so on. This would keep the world interesting for the player, also if they clean one area out it'll be relatively safe but it might also be some monster or such has walked into it and that monster might surprise the player. It should also be possible for the player to practice for example in an arena or such, without killing the opponent, this will be a much slower way to progress, but it might solve the problem of the player getting stuck and unable to progress. This is the best approach I could think of for such a game.

Of course you might also take the dark souls approach, go anywhere you want, but even on a higher level you might get killed by lower level creatures if you're not careful. Also make bosses insanely powerful so that they are tough to beat even on higher levels... on top of that make it possible for a really skilled player to beat them on level 1. It is the best game I know in managing this sort of thing.

In an open world game, I would allow the player to become powerful relative to the general gameworld (battering bandits that used to give you a hard time is a basic part of RPG fun, IMO), but then present the player with campaigns more suited to their level. Nasty demons and pissed-off gods can ramp up the challenge forever.

It would also be possible to scale some of the undiscovered campaigns to ensure there is always a challenge to be had, without levelling the general gameworld, which to me has a very deleterious effect on enjoyment. It should be possible to use scaling in a transparent way, if done thoughtfully.

DArtagnan said:

For my part, games like Dark Souls do the investment requirement part very well in terms of combat challenge, but they fail utterly to provide ample rewards. Essentially, the reward for defeating tough enemies is that you get to go on and defeat more tough enemies. A proper reward would be an expansion of the player arsenal, meaty story elements, etc.

I know some people thrive on the challenge alone, and I can appreciate that - but I don't think it makes sense to work hard unless you get to play hard.

Click to expand...

Dark souls actually does reward you quite handsomely for beating bosses. The souls you get for beating them can be used to get some of the best weapons in the game.

The catch is you could miss this mechanic altogether if you don't explore and take time to learn the games nuances. If you consume these souls for the massive experience or don't explore enough to find the right smith to upgrade souls to weapons you could play the game with out knowing that reward exists.

I know many people won't like the fact that you could miss out on that entirely but I find it pretty brilliant as it rewards player who really explore and invest and if your not the type who like to explore and invest there's always google.

As for challenge and balance I can't think of another game that does it better than DS. You get just enough boost from character progression to feel like your progressing and getting stronger but it is very hard to over level. Even when your towards the end game and you can walk through the burg ( starting area) like a demigod, if you don't pay attention and get careless you can end up dead.

I don't want to turn this in to a DS thread but reading through the thread I couldn't help but think the game you guys were wanting was DS. I think it excels in the areas your talking about unfortunately it does come up well short in many other areas that many here would find important. Story, quests, npc's, etc.

sakichop said:

Dark souls actually does reward you quite handsomely for beating bosses. The souls you get for beating them can be used to get some of the best weapons in the game.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about new loot - but a richer arsenal, as in new ways to progress your character in terms of power. Think Dragon shouts in Skyrim or something like opening up stealth skills in Gothic 3.

I find the souls/attribute system rather dull, frankly. Sure, you get more powerful - but it's all about numerical upgrades that will make you deal more damage with certain weapons or have more hit points/mana/endurance, etc.

Absolutely nothing in the way of new skills, active abilities and so on when increasing your attributes.

The catch is you could miss this mechanic altogether if you don't explore and take time to learn the games nuances. If you consume these souls for the massive experience or don't explore enough to find the right smith to upgrade souls to weapons you could play the game with out knowing that reward exists.

Click to expand...

I know the formula very well, thank you

I appreciate that you can find good loot when exploring, but that's hardly unique to Dark Souls. As for crafting materials and such, that's pretty boring to me.

That's just me, though.

I'm talking about finding journals/logs and quality exposition of a rich story. I'm talking about intricate puzzles and riddles. I'm NOT talking about NPCs spouting opaque nonsense that vaguely deals with what's going on.

As for challenge and balance I can't think of another game that does it better than DS. You get just enough boost from character progression to feel like your progressing and getting stronger but it is very hard to over level. Even when your towards the end game and you can walk through the burg ( starting area) like a demigod, if you don't pay attention and get careless you can end up dead.

Click to expand...

In terms of combat, I agree that DS has a good challenge level. It plays fair and it requires a proper investment. But as I said, I don't find the reward worth the effort.

I don't want to turn this in to a DS thread but reading through the thread I couldn't help but think the game you guys were wanting was DS. I think it excels in the areas your talking about unfortunately it does come up well short in many other areas that many here would find important. Story, quests, npc's, etc.

Click to expand...

It's definitely not what I want, but to each his own

To me, Dark Souls is Diablo with more emphasis on player-driven combat instead of character-driven combat.

It's a game about killing ever tougher monsters for loot, and that's about it.

I don't find the mostly empty areas very interesting - even if the vistas are pretty. I can't detect anything like an interesting story or secrets worth finding, except for loot, as I mentioned. But loot is only interesting if being powerful will get you greater rewards.

I prefer Diablo, because the multiplayer system is infinitely superior and while the rewards are just as trivial, I don't have to work hard to get them. If the rewards were greater, I'd gladly invest more.

I'd probably love Dark Souls as a cooperative multiplayer game, if the implementation wasn't so limited and awkward.

I'm one of those weird people who thinks that playing with your friends should be a matter of joining the game together and playing all the way through it - without having to worry about ganking - with a simple UI for the process.

GothicGothicness said:

My idea is to have a living world where creatures walk around, might attack each other and when winning one creature might die another might become stronger and so on. This would keep the world interesting for the player, also if they clean one area out it'll be relatively safe but it might also be some monster or such has walked into it and that monster might surprise the player.

Click to expand...

That actually sounds like the STALKER games, which, while not really completely "open world", has one of the most atmospheric settings I've ever seen, with emergent gameplay where wandering groups of a competing faction might come across each other (or monsters) and duke it out.

I didn't play them long enough to see how the difficulty ramps up/down in those, though.

wiretripped said:

That actually sounds like the STALKER games, which, while not really completely "open world", has one of the most atmospheric settings I've ever seen, with emergent gameplay where wandering groups of a competing faction might come across each other (or monsters) and duke it out.

I didn't play them long enough to see how the difficulty ramps up/down in those, though.

Click to expand...

Interesting, perhaps I should try stalker one of these days!

Roq said:

But that is no different from the way linear games work, they just don't always call them chapters… So your ideal solution for open world games really just amounts to not making them .

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so, if I understand right.

Within the chapter it would be a proper, open world. At chapter end (which would have to be something the player did deliberately), the character would stop adventuring for a year or two before some event would happen to pull the character back out again. Until that 'end chapter' button is pressed, though, the player is free to go anywhere.

I've seen that a few times with disk-based games where the publisher didn't want to have to repeat a bunch of data on both disks so they had some big event at the end of the disk then the story would pick up again months/years later on disk 2.

Fnord said:

That would depend a lot on the player. I for one do not enjoy it when I become an unstoppable killing machine and the game stops challenging me.

Click to expand...

That was the point. Players play for the moment their PC has turned so powerful it cant be challenged. It cant be boring to them. That is what they expect from the start. This is the moment when they get their fun.

For this type of players, the character progression system has a purpose. They want their PC to grow more powerful in order to be unchallenged some time later.
The PC starts weak, the character progression system supports the transition toward the stage the PC is unchallenged.

For players who want their PC to be constantly challenged, what is the point of character progression system? The PC grows stronger and stronger only to be remain challenged. It has no end, the cycle has no end.
The character progression system has no purpose.

When the end goal is to be unchallenged, the character system has a purpose.
When the end goal is to be challenged, the system has no purpose.

One plain, obvious way to achieve the OP goal is to remove (partially or entirely) a feature that has no purpose, that is the progression system level.
On that ground, the gameworld may be permanently challenging as stated in the OP (the gameworld is challenging at start then turned unchallenging)

Of course, as the character progression system has been made such a marker for the RPG genre, the move is painful as this would mean for all players supporting the idea that roleplaying is a character progression system, that they cant play any longer RPGs.

ChienAboyeur said:

For players who want their PC to be constantly challenged, what is the point of character progression system? The PC grows stronger and stronger only to be remain challenged. It has no end, the cycle has no end.
The character progression system has no purpose.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Not only do some of us get a sense of satisfaction, seeing our characters grow. Having a character progression system also gives you control over which gameplay elements that you want to expand/get, it gives strategic choices in terms of how you want to develop your character, and having a properly implemented character progression system can also work as a way to "open up" the world. That orc that kicked your bum 3 levels ago can now be beaten, and you can finally see what it was guarding. It does not only give you a nice sense of progression, seeing your character be able to do things that it did not use to be able to do, but it can also be a good way of foreshadowing things to come (show what you'll be going up against later, or heck even what you'll be capable of later).

Being challenged isn't a binary concept. You can be challenged a lot and a little - and I prefer games that remain challenging for most of the game - though it's obviously important that I can feel my character grow in power and, as such, have the challenge reduced towards the end of the game if I've built my character wisely.

What I don't like, though, is having the game become easier regardless of character choices - as that makes them feel pointless.

Fnord said:

That's not true. Not only do some of us get a sense of satisfaction, seeing our characters grow. Having a character progression system also gives you control over which gameplay elements that you want to expand/get, it gives strategic choices in terms of how you want to develop your character, and having a properly implemented character progression system can also work as a way to "open up" the world. That orc that kicked your bum 3 levels ago can now be beaten, and you can finally see what it was guarding. It does not only give you a nice sense of progression, seeing your character be able to do things that it did not use to be able to do, but it can also be a good way of foreshadowing things to come (show what you'll be going up against later, or heck even what you'll be capable of later).

Click to expand...

It might not be true. It cant be infirm though by providing elements that confirm it.
Which is done in the comment.

The comment shows that players say what they want, not what they desire.
The best part is that game devs already probed players' desires and answer it to the best possible.

It also confirms that this kind of question are pointless in a dictature of tastes and likes.

Not only do some of us get a sense of satisfaction, seeing our characters grow.

Click to expand...

This was never objected against.
It simply means that players get a sense of satisfaction out of a endless process.
Growing for growing is a cycle with no end. Growing from nth stage to (n+1)th stage. On the paper, it has no end.

Now when players desire the point of being unchallenged, it sets a value for n. From a certain value, the PC goes unchallenged. It has an end.
This simply means that players get a sense of satisfaction out of an ended process.

That orc that kicked your bum 3 levels ago can now be beaten

Click to expand...

A few posts above, it was about keeping the PC challenged.
A new demand appears. Putting an end to a challenge.
Up to level 3, the orc is challenging. Beyond level 3, it is no longer challenging.

This changes the situation, from being (permanently) challenged,it turns into putting an end to challenging situations (constantly)

Players do not desire to be permanently challenged, they desire to put an end to an endless stream of challenges.

No matter how many challenges they have put an end to, they want a newer challenge.

This means that the gameworld must grow constantly.
It must grow though in a certain way: it cant grow in 1 to 1 proportion as this would mean the orc remains challenging forever (showing once again the uselessness of the character progression system to meet the demand of a permanently challenging world)

It must grow in a way that until the PC has met a threat, the threat grows to meet the challenge. Once it is met, and past a PC's growth point, it must no longer be challenging.

That's level scaling. Devs already brought a suitable answer. In current conditions, in all likelihood, the only suitable answer.

Fnord said:

And it just dawned on me that there is one game out there that does time-scaling. Fallout 1. It does not do it to the full extent of what I was talking about, but it does have a level of time-scaling, where certain areas will be populated by more powerful enemies if you wait too long (like Necropolis, which from the start of the game mainly has ghouls, but later on the Super Mutants muscles in and takes over).

Click to expand...

Darklands did time-scaling and was open world, but ended up rather repetitive with all the procedurally generated content.

Time scaling sounds pretty terrible as an open world feature. It would work against the freeform feeling of doing things at your own pace in your own way.

Then again, Fallout also originally had a time limit - which is probably one of the stupidest design choices of all time. At least they patched it out

Fnord said:

and having a properly implemented character progression system can also work as a way to "open up" the world.

Click to expand...

As long as it sustain growth in the PC, players satisfied out of the PC growth are satisfied and the character progression system is properly implemented.

This bears little relevancy to the challenging aspect.

The termination of a challenge is certainly not the only way to open up the world.
Even for level based games, other options might appear.

PoE has for example the normal sequence; players growing in power until the so so final boss battle that cant be otherwise. In the side alleys, bigger challenges exist, they are optional.

It is all in the way players desire. Players desire to put an end to challenges, and they want to grow out of challenging situations.

A gameworld could remain open without putting an end to challenges. This demands though that players can live with the fact they are constantly challenged.
Players do not like that, they want to put an end to challenges.

That is the poverty of open world games: being constrained in one dimension only.