DDL on 22/7/2010 at 13:56
GOSH IF ONLY THERE WAS SOME WAY DIFFICULTY COULD BE ADJUSTED
Papy on 22/7/2010 at 21:14
Quote Posted by Chade
A simple definition is always the best one. Any mechanic which adapts the difficulty of the game when to the player performs poorly, or well, or both.
That definition is far too broad to be useful for any discussion. You are basically saying that an "Easy, Medium, Hard" choice is also an adaptive difficulty system. Considering you put adaptive difficulty in opposition to the "easy, medium hard" system, I'm guessing your definition is incomplete.
Quote Posted by Thirith
Except there's an extremely silly presupposition at its basis: easier game=reward, more difficult game=punishment.
If the only thing you get is either an easier or a more difficult game without any other special rewards, then that's not an extremely silly presupposition, that's pretty much the truth. Why would anyone want a more difficult game if there is nothing in return?
Quote Posted by Thirith
@polytourist97: I don't think I'll ever understand why it matters to some people whether others finished the game with more or less of a challenge. As long as you can play the game at the difficulty that you enjoy[...]
One of the many problems of adaptive difficulty is that it is not the difficulty that I enjoy, but the difficulty the developer who create the dynamic system think I should enjoy.
Also, I think most of us don't care if other people who play the game can kill monsters simply by looking at them. The others are not the problem. The problem is that we don't like the idea that any effort we put in the game is pretty much pointless.
Quote Posted by DDL
if you're honestly prepared to deliberately get killed repeatedly just so you can stop paying any attention for a while, but fuck's sake: that's one of the stupidest misuses of a game I've ever heard.
The majority of people who knew how to trick Final Lap rubber band AI effectively, ended up doing it. This may be a stupid misuse, but that's what most people do.
Quote Posted by DDL
[About my badminton example] You're the adaptive difficulty.
Actually, I wasn't talking about how I felt, but rather about how my opponents felt. Since my opponents knew I was in complete control of the game, he knew this was not a "game", but only some training. Some people were quite happy for this training opportunity, but some others ended up quite frustated and refused to play with me after that and sought an opponent closer to their skill.
I'd like to know, what would YOU prefer? Playing with someone close to your skill and trying everything you can to win? Or would you prefer to play against a much stronger player who could easily win 15-0, but who is conveniently returning the shuttlecock so you can hit it back?
DDL on 22/7/2010 at 21:29
See this is what I don't understand. The WHOLE POINT of an adaptive difficulty system is to provide a game where you're effectively "Playing with someone close to your skill and trying everything you can to win".
THAT IS THE POINT.
If you have no dynamic difficulty, and just, say "easy, normal and hard", and your skill level is somewhere between normal and hard, you're either going to breeze through normal, encountering no significant challenge, or get kerbstomped by everything on hard. Neither is a desirable outcome.
If you have a system that can analyse your play such that whether you start on hard OR normal (or even on no predetermined setting at all), you end up playing at an adapted difficulty that is somewhere between normal and hard, is this not an improvement?
And regarding tricking the difficulty, if your opponent in the badminton game started playing so badly you really really had to reduce your game to a stupidly low level, and then suddenly he upped his game and won a round because he was 'tricking' you, wouldn't you think he was an idiot?
Chade on 23/7/2010 at 00:06
Quote Posted by Papy
That definition is far too broad to be useful for any discussion. You are basically saying that an "Easy, Medium, Hard" choice is also an adaptive difficulty system. Considering you put adaptive difficulty in opposition to the "easy, medium hard" system, I'm guessing your definition is incomplete.
No, that's wrong on two counts.
Firstly, if the choice of easy, medium, or hard is made before the player starts playing the game, then it can't be made in response to the player's performance. (Except in the case of a game which you expect to be replayed many times ... see next paragraph.)
Secondly, it's not a game mechanic changing the difficulty, it's the player changing the difficulty. Of course, any player will change the way they play in response to their performance, and depending on the game they may have more or less power to do so. Letting the player continuously adapt the difficulty throughout the game is also an entirely valid way of dealing with difficulty, as I've said before.
Quote Posted by THE MAN WHO NEVER SAVES
If the only thing you get is either an easier or a more difficult game without any other special rewards, then that's not an extremely silly presupposition, that's pretty much the truth. Why would anyone want a more difficult game if there is nothing in return?
Why indeed?
On that note, from conversations in gen gaming, I suspect that a number of people had less fun playing Crysis because they were not playing on the hardest difficulty setting.
Quote Posted by Papy
Actually, I wasn't talking about how I felt, but rather about how my opponents felt. Since my opponents knew I was in complete control of the game, he knew this was not a "game", but only some training.
I have played table tennis with less practised friends and family before, and I agree it is difficult to "play down" while still keeping the game quite as fun. But I think this is different for three reasons. Firstly, there are very different psychological factors in multiplayer games vs single player games. Secondly, I bet the skill difference in physical sports is much larger then most single player computer games. Finally, it's very difficult to convincingly play a poor game in a physical sport (muscle memory and all that), whereas computer games operate with a huge number of hidden variables.
Thirith on 23/7/2010 at 06:29
Quote Posted by Koki
You, since you apparently don't realize you'll be playing same game as Joe Bloggs. His unchallenging game is your unchallenging game.
That doesn't even make any sense. Are you saying that any adaptive difficulty system, no matter how well or badly implemented, will automatically make a game unchallenging? If so, your point is nonsensical.
Your earlier point - that adaptive difficulty is difficult to implement well and not worth the effort - is more stringent, although it's difficult to discuss without looking at more examples than just
Oblivion. Saying that adaptive difficulty is a bad, stupid thing because of
Oblivion is like saying film is a worthless medium because of Uwe Boll's oeuvre.
Papy on 23/7/2010 at 06:55
Quote Posted by DDL
The WHOLE POINT of an adaptive difficulty system is to provide a game where you're effectively "Playing with someone close to your skill and trying everything you can to win".
That may be the point, but that's not what you get with adaptive difficulty. You end with a system which keep changing your opponent again and again in the middle of the same game. To use again my badminton analogy, it would be like if you lead the game 7-4, then your opponent will be suddenly replaced with someone stronger. And if that new opponent then lead you 12-9, he is then replaced again with someone worse. Personally, I would just say fuck that game and quit. What about you?
As for the example of the guy who would suddenly raise his level of play in a game (or rather trainning) of badminton, yes the guy would be an idiot. I'm already wasting my time so he can train. If he doesn't want to train correctly, I will just crush him and stop wasting my time. Of course, that analogy doesn't apply to adaptive difficulty.
Again, answer that one question : why should I do any effort trying to play well, if I know that in the end it won't get me anything more, except for a more difficult game? I'm not a masochist!
Quote Posted by Chade
Firstly, if the choice of easy, medium, or hard is made before the player starts playing the game, then it can't be made in response to the player's performance.
I started BioShock on hard. Because of my performance, I considered I lost the game was and restarted on medium. OK. So I was in control of my own challenge. Is that what you don't like?
Quote Posted by Chade
Letting the player continuously adapt the difficulty throughout the game is also an entirely valid way of dealing with difficulty, as I've said before.
Allowing the player to change the difficulty in the middle of his game, if he wants to, is valid. Letting the game change the difficulty without the player having a word to say is not valid to me.
Quote Posted by Chade
Posted by THE MAN WHO NEVER SAVES
Is that some kind of sarcasm and ad hominem attack?
I was saving at the start of every level with Deus Ex, Thief and BioShock. With Medal of Honor : Allied Assault, I think I was saving about every 15 seconds. It seems to me you have no idea why I chose to not save in the middle of a Deus Ex level.
Quote Posted by Chade
On that note, from conversations in gen gaming, I suspect that a number of people had less fun playing Crysis because they were not playing on the hardest difficulty setting.
Why?
Thirith on 23/7/2010 at 10:02
Quote Posted by Papy
That may be the point, but that's not what you get with adaptive difficulty. You end with a system which keep changing your opponent again and again in the middle of the same game. To use again my badminton analogy, it would be like if you lead the game 7-4, then your opponent will be suddenly replaced with someone stronger. And if that new opponent then lead you 12-9, he is then replaced again with someone worse. Personally, I would just say fuck that game and quit. What about you?
Or, to put it differently: a well designed adaptive difficulty system may be like the guy who, when he's clearly winning, gets complacent and more sloppy, allowing the other guy to score a point or two, feel that he can win after all if he really tries, and up the challenge (and hopefully the enjoyment) of both players. Or like the guy who, when he's losing, decides not to give up and instead give it his best, making himself more of a worthy adversary.
You seem to be so intent on seeing the worst case scenario, Papy, that you're blinding yourself completely to any other scenario. I don't think anyone here is arguing that adaptive difficulty is always the best way to go - but there are things that it could do well for certain types of games if implemented intelligently.
Chade on 23/7/2010 at 12:30
Quote Posted by Papy
Is that some kind of sarcasm and ad hominem attack?
No! Just pointing out that you're the wrong person to say that people will never want to play a harder game.
People want to play well balanced games. However, in games with reward systems, some players will cheat or use degenerate strategies if it helps them acquire more rewards.
Papy on 23/7/2010 at 13:45
Quote Posted by Thirith
You seem to be so intent on seeing the worst case scenario, Papy, that you're blinding yourself completely to any other scenario.
So you think someone who plays with you like a cat with a mouse is better?
To me, all those scenario are pretty much the same. Whether it's changing opponents who are doing their best, or one single opponent who is playing in a condescending way, or changing the rules in the middle of the game to favor the losing player, or whatever you want, I find no good way to look at it. No matter what kind of presentation or analogy you use, it doesn't change what adaptive difficulty is.
Quote Posted by Chade
No! Just pointing out that you're the wrong person to say that people will never want to play a harder game.
I'm certainly not against having the choice to play a harder or easier game. It's just that I think adaptive difficulty is even worse than a game I can't finish because it is too hard or, on the opposite, a game I find boring because it's too easy.
As for cheating and using "degenerate" strategies, if my opponent cheats and uses degenerate strategies, then I don't see why I shouldn't do the same (although most of the time I will simply quit playing).
Thirith on 23/7/2010 at 16:15
Quote Posted by Papy
So you think someone who plays with you like a cat with a mouse is better?
To me, all those scenario are pretty much the same. Whether it's changing opponents who are doing their best, or one single opponent who is playing in a condescending way, or changing the rules in the middle of the game to favor the losing player, or whatever you want, I find no good way to look at it. No matter what kind of presentation or analogy you use, it doesn't change what adaptive difficulty is.
Okay, this is where I stop trying to discuss this with you, because at this point your argument consists entirely of rhetoric and doesn't have any substance any more. Bye.
