One hard lesson that new developers have to learn is that not all game difficulty is equally fun. Some types of difficulty are perceived as fair, but other types are perceived as unfair… or worse, buggy.
The classics can teach us a lot about this. Many of the classic arcade games have survived for over 30 years and are still thriving in modern gaming. Robotron has been re-imagined as everything from Smash TV to Geometry Wars. Space Invaders is the grandfather of a million shoot-em-ups. Pac-Man never spawned derivative games, but the new versions of Pac-Man on the Xbox 360 are great, popular, accessible games.
But there are plenty of other arcade games which never managed a popular sequel, and whose game mechanics have died completely. Take, for instance, Asteroids and Joust. What’s wrong with these classics? Why can’t they be reborn?
The problem with these two is that their difficulty comes purely from the controls. In Asteroids you must painstakingly orient your ship and provide just the right amount of thrust. In Joust you must flap just the right number of times to overcome gravity, but not TOO high. Both games are about mastering the tricky controls of the on-screen avatar. If the controls were easier, there’d be no game there.
These games don’t work with modern audiences. If players have trouble controlling their avatar, they don’t go “Wow, this game is hard!” They say, “This game is unresponsive”. Often they don’t even perceive it as difficulty! They just perceive it as poor design.
Contrast these to Mario games. In the original Super Mario Bros, Mario was a little sluggish, but he’s gotten easier and easier to control over the years. That doesn’t mean Mario games are “dumbed down”, either… they always have some very difficult levels. (The bonus levels in Super Mario Sunshine are among the most difficult 3D platform levels I’ve ever done.) But the difficulty feels “fair” because the player feels in control. When Mario dies, it’s because you did the wrong thing, not because “the stupid controls don’t work right!”
To repeat, I’m not saying players can’t handle hard games. LOTS of gamers want hard games, at least occasionally. But don’t make the mistake of thinking all kinds of difficulty are equally viable. Even when players are asking for “old-school hardcore games”, they really mean they want a game that is difficult within the confines of what they now consider fair… not what they considered fair 15 years ago.
We’re never going to go back to the days when you had to sit down for three or four minutes between combats (EQ1), or use trial and error to find the spell components needed for each of your spells (Asheron’s Call), or calculate the angle of your enemy in your head (classic Star Trek). Those kinds of “difficulty” are perceived as design flaws now.
On the other hand, MMOs where you have to use your abilities perfectly, in tandem with a large group, and where the death penalty is high? That’s all acceptable for a hard game.
Players Are Maturing, Not Devolving
As the art of video games matures, players are slowly figuring out what is fun for them and what isn’t. Their expectations are based around that. When they want to play a difficult game, they expect it to be difficult in “fair” ways… not “unfair” ones.
Players aren’t “too stupid to understand” these discarded concepts; they are simply unwilling to tolerate outmoded designs, much as you are not likely to pay $15 to watch a silent black and white movie in theaters.
You can wish that wasn’t true, and you can decry the “sorry state of gaming today” if you like. (I don’t.) But whatever you do, you aren’t bringing these mechanics back into vogue. Plan accordingly.