Higher difficult = higher points
Author
Something Ive seen in some games (including some for the 'Big' name designers)
is you have increasing difficulty levels -- which just make the game harder (usually more tedious) by tweaking parameters and dont have any new missions/skills/anything opened up.
I would have thought that (at least for competitions sake -- particularly against yourself) they would have the 'victory' points increase scaled to the game difficulty. The player wants to be rewarded with doing better (or rather playing well against increasing difficulty) but instead the game gets harder and points harder to get, the game might be shorter (less time at higher levels etc..) so that most players say 'why bother - I already did all this'.
Of course the game maker already has his $$$ so really might not care, but the great games are the ones you go back to for years (and do usually sell in the stores longer).
The additional content thing might be impractical if most players never bother to go to higher/highest difficulties, but the point scores at least would be relatively easy to do.
This depends on the concepts of the game, how these "points" are shown, and what rewards they are associated with.
Is the high score list separated by difficulty? If so, then the point is moot because you can assume that 50 points on easy is not the same as 50 points on hard. The listings are distinct, rankings are independent, so there is no issue.
If difficulty isn't listed separately and they are the only ranking system, and if points aren't adjusted, then points alone are a horrible indicator. If 50 points on easy isn't equivalent to 50 points on hard, then they shouldn't have been on the same list and it is a design flaw.
There are many games (I just finished one that will be on store shelves later this month) that use multiple score systems. Minigames are played at any difficulty, and the resulting score is multiplied by a difficulty value to yield the actual in-game money awarded. If you are playing on easy and get 1000 points you might get $50 in-game money, while your opponent on hard may get 700 points yet end up with $105 in-game money. As long as it appears on the screen at the end of the game in a friendly manner, it works.
In this situation, where Hard points are 3x the value of Easy points, it is up to the game designers to tune the game so that it really does take about 3x the skill.
Is the high score list separated by difficulty? If so, then the point is moot because you can assume that 50 points on easy is not the same as 50 points on hard. The listings are distinct, rankings are independent, so there is no issue.
If difficulty isn't listed separately and they are the only ranking system, and if points aren't adjusted, then points alone are a horrible indicator. If 50 points on easy isn't equivalent to 50 points on hard, then they shouldn't have been on the same list and it is a design flaw.
There are many games (I just finished one that will be on store shelves later this month) that use multiple score systems. Minigames are played at any difficulty, and the resulting score is multiplied by a difficulty value to yield the actual in-game money awarded. If you are playing on easy and get 1000 points you might get $50 in-game money, while your opponent on hard may get 700 points yet end up with $105 in-game money. As long as it appears on the screen at the end of the game in a friendly manner, it works.
Player Score Diffculty $ AwardedFrob 1000 Easy (5%) $50Robby 900 Medium (10%) $90Borf 700 Hard (15%) $105In this situation, where Hard points are 3x the value of Easy points, it is up to the game designers to tune the game so that it really does take about 3x the skill.
I don't think it makes any difference to me when the difficulty is chosen as an interface element.
However, if I'm given the choice between path A and path B in a single play through, when I know that path B is more difficult, I expect there to at least be motivation for it. Otherwise, I would feel stupid for going that way, even if I do want to face bigger challenges.
However, if I'm given the choice between path A and path B in a single play through, when I know that path B is more difficult, I expect there to at least be motivation for it. Otherwise, I would feel stupid for going that way, even if I do want to face bigger challenges.
Author
Quote:Original post by Kest
I don't think it makes any difference to me when the difficulty is chosen as an interface element.
However, if I'm given the choice between path A and path B in a single play through, when I know that path B is more difficult, I expect there to at least be motivation for it. Otherwise, I would feel stupid for going that way, even if I do want to face bigger challenges.
Unless you go via B because you want to see something new. Unfortunately many game use the same things over and over (because of the cost of developing assets and scripting....)
(One game I though was exceptional was Far Cry because SOME parts gave you alot of options as to the paths you could take to achieve the directives).
I think its a fantastic idea to have certain game levels/missions/areas locked until the higher difficulties. I've often wished for that when playing games like Gears of War through multiple times.
That would really increase the game's lifespan and keep people coming back for more.
That would really increase the game's lifespan and keep people coming back for more.
Some people like things that are just ridiculously hard. Have you ever tried playing Call of Duty on Veteran? It's not fun. It's punishing. It's unfair and daunting. You die every two seconds. There is no added incentive or reward. It's irrational... and people love it.
Author
Quote:Original post by QuantifyFun
Some people like things that are just ridiculously hard. Have you ever tried playing Call of Duty on Veteran? It's not fun. It's punishing. It's unfair and daunting. You die every two seconds. There is no added incentive or reward. It's irrational... and people love it.
With every other hit you get being fatal you might have thought they could at least have lowered the number of oponents (instead of the stream of enemies who keep coming (ducks in a shooting gallery) to the same place their fellows just got slaughtered at -- now if they left al the bodies to pile up ...).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
