Company News Taking Care of Business - Iron Tower Studio 2018 Business Diary

[Trashos]

Because players want to play a badass (heroic fantasy) but playing a badass on Easy feels wrong. So it has to be on Hard but without any real effort.

Since AoD's #1 complaint was difficulty, we added 3 difficulty modes in DR to see if it solves the problem. To be honest, I was pretty sure it would but I had many conversations with very upset people who showed me the error of my ways.

One person was convinced that we made Hard and Normal too hard on purpose, to humiliate players and force them to play on Easy (as if we have nothing better to do). I tried to explain that Hard is for people who like challenging fights but that upset him even more, as if he wasn't good enough. So he couldn't play on Hard but refused to play on Easy or Normal. Oddly enough, quite a few players felt they were humiliated.

Another person felt that he deserved to win because he was a veteran player who beat Dragon Age on Hard (usually people namedrop Baldur's Gate to impress me with their credentials) and he shouldn't have to give enemies penalties (that's how the lower difficulty modes work) in order to beat the game. So again the reason is that the victory didn't feel so good if you know that you had to cripple the enemies. It has to feel real so next time we'll go with these difficulties: Hero, Great Hero, the Greatest Hero. No penalties to enemies, that's just wrong, but your super saiyan powers will grow exponentially with each difficulty level. The harder the game, the easier it should be.

It might worth it checking out Civ4's difficulty levels (I am talking about Civ4, because it's the last Civ I 've played). It offered dozens of difficulty levels for idiots, so by the time one reached "Normal", he already felt like he was doing better than all the people who play on all those levels below. (To this day, I don't know if anyone actually plays on Civ's lower difficulties. Maybe they are just there for psychological support.)

I also seem to remember that the highest difficulty had the comment "Bwahahahaha!". Indeed it is extremely tough, and very few people play on it. Civ does a good job of making players feel OK despite difficulty on higher levels.

 

[MRY]

I wonder whether something like "Story Mode" is the way to package it, rather than as a difficulty level. It's silly that this kind of marketing/wrapping is so important, but it does seem to me that really there are just two classes of players at issue here, one that wants to play AOD for its narrative/C&C/exploration (but might still enjoy combats as filler material) and one that wants to play excellent and challenging tactical combat. I doubt the second set really needs a difficulty slider, nor does the first set, really, they just want to turn combat from content to filler.

 

[Tigranes]

Given the number of people who splurge that POE should be easier for them and they're playing on Hard (which is already Easy) and they beat Dragon Age 2 on Hard too...

The bit about the opening is a good point. I wonder what I would have thought of DR 30 minutes in, if I had not enjoyed AOD beforehand.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

i thought that hard diffs are about exploiting game and its systems, not being good.

Like in old arcades where beating bosses was about finding loop holes in their AI

And this is the solution!

Easy= Hero
Hard = Game systems scientist
Very Hard = Game systems scientist and analytic of probabilities

Make hard difficulties sound boring for casuals so they won't chose them!

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I think a big issue is with most players conditioned to think that certain bands of probability equate to guaranteed hits and so on. Or that 75% means 3 outta 4 when it just means 75%.

 

[Urthor]

Honestly what is the actual point of accuracy? It's a game mechanic where either you have 99% accuracy all the time and you only miss when the developers throw a changeup style enemy with high dodge stats, in which case you wonder why it's in the game, or it's like PoE or Xcom and you are just annoyed at its entire existence.

If the games just had a resistance stat and you only worried about a DR mechanic, and checks to saves for certain things etc that'd be swell, no need for accuracy everything can just hit 100% of the time job done. Unless you have a real time/line of sight model where it's a very fair "well if it hits it hits" setup.

 

[Tigranes]

I'm fine with POE/XCom accuracy (in principle, not necessarily those games). It works best when there are meaningful ways to overcome or mitigate accuracy differences.

 

[Daedalos]

Dungeon Rats had some really cool parts. The big battles with human enemies, the ancient high tech area with the robots, they're all pretty cool.

But you need to have a good start to grab people. When the very first thing you have to do is hunt ants, that's not really exciting, especially when you're promised a big prison break right from the start.

Pacing at the beginning is important.

Unless the game is fallout 2, where hunting ants and scorpions in the temple of trials was the best opening evar ;-)

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Guys, I don’t understand how someone could possibly still think after DR that levels of difficulty is a good idea. cRPG players will demand that the level of difficulty be comparable with the likes of Skyrim and other AAA games, because that’s what they know. It is not enough to lower the HP of enemies, but it is also need to streamline the gameplay to hell in order to achieve that. And all that for what? These people will still complain about bad graphics, and so on. It’s a uphill battle. This will only attract more butthurt and negative reviews.

I wonder whether something like "Story Mode" is the way to package it, rather than as a difficulty level. It's silly that this kind of marketing/wrapping is so important, but it does seem to me that really there are just two classes of players at issue here, one that wants to play AOD for its narrative/C&C/exploration (but might still enjoy combats as filler material) and one that wants to play excellent and challenging tactical combat. I doubt the second set really needs a difficulty slider, nor does the first set, really, they just want to turn combat from content to filler.

So the developer should butcher the gameplay into two mindsets to please players who don't care about character building and reinforce stereotypes (storyfags and combatfags) in cRPGs. What a bunch of hooey. It's precisely the opposite. He should strive to make non-combat systems even more challenging and complex.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

. He should strive to make non-combat systems even more challenging and complex.

How?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Guys, I don’t understand how someone could possibly still think after DR that levels of difficulty is a good idea. cRPG players will demand that the level of difficulty be comparable with the likes of Skyrim and other AAA games, because that’s what they know. It is not enough to lower the HP of enemies, but it is also need to streamline the gameplay to hell in order to achieve that. And all that for what? These people will still complain about bad graphics, and so on. It’s a uphill battle. This will only attract more butthurt and negative reviews.

I wonder whether something like "Story Mode" is the way to package it, rather than as a difficulty level. It's silly that this kind of marketing/wrapping is so important, but it does seem to me that really there are just two classes of players at issue here, one that wants to play AOD for its narrative/C&C/exploration (but might still enjoy combats as filler material) and one that wants to play excellent and challenging tactical combat. I doubt the second set really needs a difficulty slider, nor does the first set, really, they just want to turn combat from content to filler.

So the developer should butcher the gameplay into two mindsets to please players who don't care about character building and reinforce stereotypes (storyfags and combatfags) in cRPGs. What a bunch of hooey. It's precisely the opposite. He should strive to make non-combat systems even more challenging and complex.

There are quite a few (probably 15-20%) positive reviews written by people who liked the setting, story, and dialogues but didn't really like combat for one reason or another. Overall, our highest rated feature is the storytelling (including C&C) not combat, so why should we force everyone to master the combat system to enjoy the storytelling?

I like Mark's suggestion a lot because it's honest. If you're here for the story, play in the story mode and the enemies will die when you click on them. If you want the full package, play on the default (hard) difficulty and don't complain.

 

[Goral]

Since AoD's #1 complaint was difficulty, we added 3 difficulty modes in DR to see if it solves the problem. To be honest, I was pretty sure it would but I had many conversations with very upset people who showed me the error of my ways.

I'm pretty sure that DR would sell a lot less and had more negative reviews if it only had one difficulty level.

 

[Daedalos]

Maybe it's because people live in denial of how shit they are at handling challenging combat, so they choose default, because MUH STORY, but dammit if I will play on easy, because I'm pretty good at combat rite?

It's never pleasant or easy to admit to yourself, that you're actually quite shit at something (must be the gaem that's wrong, not me !) :D

 

[JarlFrank]

My first playthrough of DR was on easy cause I know VD likes to design hard combat and I wanted to know what to expect before going into it on hard diff.

No shame in admitting it.

 

[Fenix]

And the result of all that is a little bit over 125k copies sold.

That's huge numbers in modern world, filled with nerly-syndromeDown people, with are I think half of all people, or people grown on games that are antonym of "challenge".

Change the names why? Because playing as Tough Bastard instead of Murderous Psychopath was so humiliating? There is a reason why games keep getting easier, why Hard became the new Normal and it has nothing to do with the naming conventions.

And what is this reason?

Because players want to play a badass (heroic fantasy) but playing a badass on Easy feels wrong. So it has to be on Hard but without any real effort.

Since AoD's #1 complaint was difficulty, we added 3 difficulty modes in DR to see if it solves the problem. To be honest, I was pretty sure it would but I had many conversations with very upset people who showed me the error of my ways.

One person was convinced that we made Hard and Normal too hard on purpose, to humiliate players and force them to play on Easy (as if we have nothing better to do). I tried to explain that Hard is for people who like challenging fights but that upset him even more, as if he wasn't good enough. So he couldn't play on Hard but refused to play on Easy or Normal. Oddly enough, quite a few players felt they were humiliated.

Another person felt that he deserved to win because he was a veteran player who beat Dragon Age on Hard (usually people namedrop Baldur's Gate to impress me with their credentials) and he shouldn't have to give enemies penalties (that's how the lower difficulty modes work) in order to beat the game. So again the reason is that the victory didn't feel so good if you know that you had to cripple the enemies. It has to feel real so next time we'll go with these difficulties: Hero, Great Hero, the Greatest Hero. No penalties to enemies, that's just wrong, but your super saiyan powers will grow exponentially with each difficulty level. The harder the game, the easier it should be.

That's pure gold, the essence of "modern interactivists gamers".

p.s. I tried to solo game with no defence character (= 0 dodge and 0 block skills) but only got past Barka fight. On upper elevator - no chance

I tried it with duo - Marcus and my crossbower on IM, Marcus died on last fight before that Berserker guy, when some guy has bomb.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

There are quite a few (probably 15-20%) positive reviews written by people who liked the setting, story, and dialogues but didn't really like combat for one reason or another. Overall, our highest rated feature is the storytelling (including C&C) not combat, so why should we force everyone to master the combat system to enjoy the storytelling?

I like Mark's suggestion a lot because it's honest. If you're here for the story, play in the story mode and the enemies will die when you click on them. If you want the full package, play on the default (hard) difficulty and don't complain.

The problem is that you are assuming that (1) most players of this group didn’t enjoy good combat; (2) the brutal combat system is disconnected from the game world and your narrative purposes. Hint: it is not. You can bet that a part of this group praised the story and the reactivity even more because the game is accomplished in both the narrative and the combat aspects of the gameplay. The brutal aspects of the combat reinforce the setting. It is hard to the take the game world seriously if you can't be killed by making a mistake or engaging in a bad fight. On the other hand, there is also quite a few who enjoyed the reactivity, but hated the harsh skill checks. Would you consider dumping this key design element to please these players because they are honest about their preferences? And by the way, what honesty has anything to do with this discussion? Either the player’s preferences have merit and are in accord with the developers’ goals or they are not. If they are not, the fact that they are sincere is irrelevant.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

I'm pretty sure that DR would sell a lot less and had more negative reviews if it only had one difficulty level.

I wouldn't because they would not think that the developers are actively trying to humiliate them.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

. He should strive to make non-combat systems even more challenging and complex.

How?

By developing new dialogue systems, for starters. See "No Truce With The Furies" and "Titan Outpost" for examples in this direction.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The problem is that you are assuming that (1) most players of this group didn’t enjoy good combat;

Not sure about good combat but they explicitly stated that they didn't like our combat system so I don't have to assume anything.

... (2) the brutal combat system is disconnected from the game world and your narrative purposes. Hint: it is not.

I know it's not and I explained to people countless times but if the only way someone can enjoy our games is by making combat easy, I see no reason to take a stand and say no.

On the other hand, there is also quite a few who enjoyed the reactivity, but hated the harsh skill checks. Would you consider dumping this key design element to please these players because they are honest about their preferences?

Why not?

And by the way, what honesty has to do with anything in this discussion. Either the player’s preferences have merit and are in accord with the developers’ goals or they are not. If they are not, the fact that they are sincere is irrelevant.

I meant that it's an honest approach. If we're going to do different difficulty modes, might as well call them Story Mode and Tactical instead of Easy, Normal, and Hard. And if we're offering this easy mode, might as well add an option to turn off checks. I'd say at least 10% of players (based on the feedback) used the console cheats to give them extra SP or used the mod that doubles SP rewards. Should I yell at them for doing it and forbid buying our games in the future?

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

I meant that it's an honest approach. If we're going to do different difficulty modes, might as well call them Story Mode and Tactical instead of Easy, Normal, and Hard. And if we're offering this easy mode, might as well add an option to turn off checks. I'd say at least 10% of players (based on the feedback) used the console cheats to give them extra SP or used the mod that doubles SP rewards. Should I yell at them for doing it and forbid buying our games in the future?

Hold on. So you are saying that if some players don’t want to play your game with skill checks and combat, you should just remove these core elements of your design approach to please them? Shouldn’t developers have any saying in these decisions? If you allow the players to remove core features off, how is that any different from Triple-A approach to game design? It seems like a cop-out.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Hold on. So you are saying that if some players don’t want to play your game with skill checks and combat, you should just remove these core elements of your design approach to please them?

I'm saying that offering options to customize the player's experience is not a bad thing. For example, some people didn't want to see the check tags like [persuasion], we gave them an option to disable them. Was it really a big deal? When it comes to skill checks, the top request is to show the numeric values of the checks. If we can make it optional, it would be great. It won't take anything away from people who don't want to see the tags or the values, but make the game more enjoyable for people who want this info displayed.

Shouldn’t developers have any saying in these decisions?

Nobody is forcing us to make these decisions. We're simply processing the feedback and considering what we can do for people who liked the game but struggled with either combat or skill checks.

If you allow the players to remove core features off, how is that any different from Triple-A approach to game design? It seems like a cop-out.

The difference is that AAA games are streamlined at the design level whereas I'm suggesting to streamline the easy mode and keep the design core the same.

 

[MRY]

Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss I was just spitballing an idea, and I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but since the game already lets you selected difficulty levels, I thought this was mostly a question about how to describe them. As a designer, I think you need to figure out how to preserve the integrity of your vision but also how to draw an audience into that vision.

Incidentally, how to deal with players who can't handle complex systems in RPGs isn't a 21st century problem. Among recurrent features in older RPGs are: (1) prefab parties to skip character creations (endemic); (2) edit character stats to bypass build requirements and skill/attribute thresholds (SSI/Gold Box games); (3) autoresolve combat (e.g., "quick combat" in Gold Box games). Indeed, autoresolving combat has been a core feature in a genre of games even more combat oriented than RPGs: 4X games. MOO had it, Total War has it, etc. I don't know that any of the older approaches was a good approach, but it's not a strictly modern issue.

I'm actually wondering whether some kind of autoresolve approach to combat might have a crazy genius, where the game somehow determines what the outcome of the fight would be, doesn't let you initiate it if you would lose, and otherwise lets you pick among a few different outcomes that allocate attrition in different ways (i.e., one might use up more consumable but spare on HP, the other might distribute injuries among the party, etc.). The basic idea would be that your enemies would have a combat value, and you would have to "pay" up to that value with various of your own resources (HP, consumables) that would be priced according to your characters' combat abilities. Hard to figure out how to implement it, but that would retain combat as a cost-imposer while letting combat-averse players still pursue combat paths through the game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Precisely. Realms of Arkania games let you autoresolve combat which didn't make these games any less hardcore.

 

[Tigranes]

Essentially, it would be equivalent to making the game the way VD wants to make it, and then adding in a cheat semiGod mode.

Of course, it has been a longstanding irony in vidya games that players are very resistant to 'cheating' or consoles, and when they feel they are 'forced' to they hold it against the game - but they have much less resistance to an official Easy mode. So I can see the logic in creating the game, then adding in a Story Mode button at the end.

 

[MRY]

That's not what I'm suggesting. The way that autoresolve has worked in other games that I've played is that it imposes a cost that is typically somewhat greater than what a skillful player would bear if he did not use autoresolve. It's just that the cost is much lower than the cost that an incompetent player would bear, such that an incompetent player does not need to take the time to learn the combat system and a combat-averse player does not need to take the time to play through individual combats. (A "quick combat" in which AI controls the player party would not save as much time, but would still save some time.) In that sense, an autoresolve is actually "cheats" less than a difficulty mode reduction does -- the player character comes off weaker, not stronger, relative to the world as a result, while the opposite is true of a difficulty reduction. It's more about letting players pursue combat-oriented paths without bothering to figure out or participate in actual fights. There's certainly something fishy about the idea, but it might still be the right one.