A difficult rant with no defined stance (The asterisk edition)

(Updates at the end of page as always, foreword here, Article following. Confusing - hopefully not.)

I hate starting an article/rant off with a foreword but felt it would be necessary considering the situation. First of all, I apologize I did not post this Friday as expected. It came off as whiny. Then Saturday came and went and so did the article. Rewritten twice to no avail. Sunday I didn't really bother with it. Today came and I wanted/needed to remove it from my mind. I tried to explain everything as best as I could but even now I can feel my feet sinking inside the line made out of quicksand. Truthfully I'm not even sure if I even believe or want to believe anything of the following. I wrote most of it out of spite and anger towards the predictably annoying AI found in certain games I've been playing. Other things crept directly out of my biased hatred of all things "casual". Take that only as a minor comment. I do in fact like/love certain casual games. Just don't get me started on Facebook games (not that I even have a page). In general I actually can say with full disclosure I think this post was a general waste of time. To make matters worse I continued and continued to write more and more. It never seems to end.


What I do suggest to my readers. If it interests you go ahead and read it. If it doesn't then do yourself a favor and don't. As always, updates at the end. And please, ignore any grammatical or spelling errors as I'm sure there still are some. I've had it with rereading this...

*Tuesday edit* This was supposed to be posted up on Monday Morning or by Monday night. Sad truth was I fell asleep before it was so now it is three sentences longer. Wonderful.



Thank you for reading,
Rossini

   The difficulty with tango between Human and Artificial intelligence stands in at line break one.

"How should you like to die today" should the computer ask its human counterpart.

    Since I've renounced Online multiplayer six or seven years ago due to time allotment (and not in part to skill or lack thereof) I've since transcended* towards the dying gamer class of old. The single player. But this topic is not partial to Online vs Offline. I have no interest in discussing such a thing today. And this is not about the future of single player games. Again I have no damning opinion at this moment.

This topic revolves around the evolution and steps forward to refining difficulty in modern video games.

    Recently as you may recall, I wrote a review on Uncharted: Drake's fortune (Haven't read? Check four posts down or under Amazon Reviews). I chose Uncharted as a perfect subject to dissect considering I hadn't explored previously its more ludicrous difficulties. And it was the perfect opportunity to collect my first platinum trophy with the completion of one very specific task.

    Particularly the task of charting the merciless difficulty known only as "crushing". And I'll admit against my better judgement of the interwebs that it wasn't necessarily easy to complete. Not because of my ability to actively read and adjust to the flow of the game. More often then not I failed because of archaic rationality. Still I managed to finish the mode in under eight hours without too much trouble.

    But it got me thinking. The major problem with Uncharted was the more I flipped up the difficulty switch the less I played by the core game-play set of rules. For example: more often then not the game plays under the guise of the modern era; Cover to cover mechanics. But I found myself more often then not strafing and pieing corners then going in and out of cover. Actually I'd go so far as to say cover at times was more detrimental to playing the game on crushing then not. And for obvious reasons that is a major concern/problem.

    Allow me to enhance this further with use of an analogy. Let's assume for a moment that Mario, the master plumber of all video game history, could no longer defeat an enemy on his game's most difficult settings by jumping on its head. As with most games of his era touching another being no matter the area will instantly destroy Mario and return you to stage beginning. Surely this could be overcome but at the cost of a known core ability.


    Going one step further allow me to shine the spotlight on Max Payne. Imagine if old Max could no longer freely enter Bullet time or even suggest that if he could it would drain his health instead of a separate meter. Would this still allow Payne to survive and complete his task?

Making bullet time look good.

     The answer on everyone's mind is Yes. Albeit at extremely slow paces and only with a infinite amount of patience and practice. None of which I'm suggesting it takes to complete Uncharted but bear with me.

    And it isn't solely third person games that suffer from severe spikes in gaming logic. Call of duty's world at war decides at random when it will eventually turn into a nade fest. Four to six grenades lobbed at your feet at any given time is not difficult. It is stupid.

           Obviously difficulty in video games extends from decreasing and increasing numbers that more often then not break balance and fun. Of which I thoroughly expect but there must certainly be a way to factor in more control over one's adversity. And simply severing health and ammo pick ups along with shattering core game-play mechanics does not make an ideal solution.

    Two games (there are plenty more, I just can't remember them all right now) come to mind with the proper solution albeit follow the strict rule-set I just got describing save for one very important detail.



Ninja Gaiden Black (Xbox) played off difficulty with transferring blame from the AI to the user. Most damage sustained could be avoided or simply blocked. While hits took more health, given the ability to reduce it from skill and speed allowed some form of balance. It was almost guaranteed that when you fell victim to a blade, bullet, missile, or some other random attack it was your fault. So the lessening of life was welcomed with a play better mentality. The game otherwise never changed and anything possible in the easiest difficulties was possible at the hardest.

     Stranglehold (Various) held together similar issues all games discussed did. Yes on Hard-boiled bullet time was practically cut in half and you sustained damage with ease. But the major differences here and Uncharted - although likely attributed to bullet time - were that it was in some ways easier to dodge bullets and make the precise shots when absolutely necessary. And of course even though body shots were extremely ineffective in both games, head-shots were never a premium in Stranglehold and generally killed the attacker unlike what happened to me multiple times in Uncharted where the man's raised hand would absorb all the damage. There was a Mexican standoff mini game that was ridiculous on hard-boiled but.... No comment. Funny thing about when I played this game. Hard was the perfect difficulty. It was intense all throughout without being overbearing. Normal was a joke. Another thing I'd probably get hung for saying but I felt like I was trying to play a 3D version of Contra when I tackled Hard-boiled. I just felt like I really had to dodge the big round unrealistic bullets otherwise I'd die after one hit.

           So after all that what would I suggest or take away from this discussion? That bullet-time and effective dodging can overcome scaling difficulties? No that would silly in almost every context. But there are a few things I could go without in the future.

1.   I'm tired of being One shot at higher difficulties. Unless the game intends itself to be realistic in nature then let us tone down the idea of evaporating life and leave it to the games that deserve/lend themselves to it. IE like the Tom Clancy franchises.

2.   My biggest pet peeve in these spikes is when a developer decides to cut my ammo reserve and then turn around and inflate an enemy's health by two hundred percent. Unless this is a stealth game or a brawler do not do this. It is lazy and simply infuriating. And if you really must remove bullet counts then would you please bring a more standardized health system the the enemies? It should never take more then three to five bullets from an AK to fully down another human being. In reality it really shouldn't take more then one but I won't suggest that. To counter this idea might I suggest more enemies if the encounter can handle it?

A 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov round. Not something you want thrust into your body under any circumstance. (Picture credit: Wikipedia.com

3.   A tough one because it is all theory and not practice but in one form or another a gamer's mettle should be tested by ability and not cheese. The worst thing in the gaming world is an AI that likes to cheat. And you bet right if I suggest that Uncharted did that a quarter or so of my play-through. With a Plethora of special weapons that one shot kill (two pistols but with slow firing rates, two shotguns when at close range, and most of the time a grenade launcher) a lot of my restarts were caused from turning a corner and then spontaneously crumpling to floor, dead. Enemy's spawn points are and will always be tied to some form of progress and when given this ability there is not much to do to advert from it. I have no real suggestion here because unfortunately this is tied to core game-play. Cover will absorb the hit but that's not always the staple here. And when these special guns are in the hands of a ninety-eight percent shooter your ability to stay alive will always be jeopardy. The major con to most games is when dealing with this situation you'll normally have to use unconventional or unflattering tactics such as bait and drag spawning enemies, retreading across progress and setting up a kill zone. rinse and repeat.

    Minor continuation: World at war is perfect exemplary to the above. When AI has gone beyond the confinements and goes berserk. No one likes playing catch every step of the way. Please developers, don't bother us with your father issues. Thank you.

    Not all difficulty modes broken are solely bound in the higher echelons. Nowadays most are broken intrinsically from the very beginning. From your causal games to the childlike hand holding of repackaged classics.



    Case in point, Kirby's epic yarn.The graphics are phenomenal and the soft plat-former is a joy to play but underneath it's silky skin lies a dark seeded secret. It is simply too far beneath the Mendoza line to easily if at all recommend**. The removal of death is not a selling point for the "hardcore" gamer crowd. Not being able to fail is simply not an option no matter how moronic that sounds. Prince of Persia tried this concept to great unrest in 08 and collectively polarized folks. Truth is, both these games had the requirements for difficulty but were cut down by their lack of speed and accuracy required to make them a little bit more toned to their environment. Neither are horrible games and to some extent I accept their position in life but to me and people like me, they were lost opportunities.

    Which leads me to my final topic. After all this complaining about modern day difficulty spikes or lack thereof I hardheadedly will make one last accusation. The problem with most games lies in one very simple question.

               "Why do we worry about being shot?" 

     Why try not to be shot? Why the hell should I care? The problem is without a break to break counter, I'm merely invincible assuming I can find myself cover and "heal". It may take a while but in theory new age games are easier because of two very important things. Logic and the replenishing health system. Logic dictates avoidance, IE how to avoid (where as in the old games things were either unavoidable or required a trail and error style memory game) what to avoid (assuming one has a choice between turret shelling and small arms) when to avoid and of course how to manipulate the world and it's surrounding. And the health system? An unplugged source of power. One mustn't worry about every little thing only what is large, red, or blinking. Generally speaking this system should adhere to a fractional health bar setup at best/worst that way health isn't simply infinite without heavy worry. See Halo ODST/Reach or Resistance: Fall of man for examples.

    And here we are, the truth is in grasp but something is quite wrong with my rant. Something that white out simply can't blank out and non nonsensical transitions can avoid. That is because the topic of difficulty like many a great things such as taste and comedy is built in the realm of subjectivity. I know there is no right or wrong in this area. One shots and "causal" game-play elements aren't going anywhere. They're bound to the system more then the cover based rigamarole. I can't expect developers to drop everything and simply "add more bad guys" to any given scenario. It is illogical and unpractical. And to make matters worse it would break games more then the alternative.

    So what is the overall solution? I suppose I have absolutely no idea. Outside of Online enveloping the single player market there doesn't seem to be any real good indicators on this front that AI will yet take that next step. Certainly multiplayer can and has substitute certain games and certain areas but at what cost?

     South park's tower defense game on XBLA got it right. Each step up raked in a slew of new enemies with their hardest pounding the screen with fifty or sixty at times. But that is a tower defense game. Its easy to throw more enemies in that scenario. On the other hand games like Demon Souls and Super Meat boy got it right without different modes. They can both be dangerous and maddening but their ability to both challenge and invigorate accomplishment is refreshing.

But again those are not shooters. They are rpg based (DS), plat-former based (SMB) and most importantly skill based. Can a shooter accomplish*** the same thing without granting omnipotent power to the player?

And when it does will it be somehow bound to updating user interface***? Motion controls***? Virtual reality***? Some form of enhanced brain recognition?

Who the heck knows but with sure guarantee I can tell you one thing. Artificial Intelligence doesn't have or know the solution. Not yet anyways.

*PRE POST EDITING*

One topic I didn't mention in this post in AI in stealth games and difficulty in that genre. Perhaps I will eventually come back to it at a later date whenever I review splinter cell. Also not mentioned was the Call of duty series that rest in the hands of their loving creators. CoD: 2 and 4 were fun (to some extent) and great accomplishments on their brutal settings. So can the Halo series. The reason? Each has something most shooters don't.

-Rossini

*Used as an ironic terminology. Transcended downwards....

**Haven't reviewed yet. Will when have time/complete. I do recommend it but not for those strictest of strict thus why I said I overall wouldn't want to recommend it to like-minded individuals unless they can accept it forehand.

***This isn't the first time I've brought this subject up. As much as I love my standard controllers, joysticks are holding shooters on the console back. Sounds stupid but I just don't always feel one hundred percent about my "skill" when using a joystick. I can play well but gosh darn it I think it is about time these pieces of plastic help me do better then that. And all the fps freaks in the world can't substitute a mouse/proper motion controls. And it doesn't help that I no longer even use a freak on my ps3 controller (it damages the shell/stick).

 update section:

Couple of updates. I was distracted and slightly depressed over the weekend so not much came out on paper. Yes it is irony if one is to be depressed but not be-able to write depressing material. Its getting there.

I have a slight development to using my grip its! product that I will edit into my review eventually. If anyone purchased those or was intending on doing so please read that info first.

On the Review side of things, I haven't started anything yet. Don't know what I will review next and it might not be until L.A Noire. Let you know when I do.