A long long time ago, "challenge" was a integral part of game reviews...

[CaptSpaulding]

I still remember a time when a game's challenge level was an integral part of how a game was regarded.
I think it was Gamepro that split reviews into 4 categories and one was "challenge"? But not just Gamepro I think most game reviews at the time liked to talk about how challenging a game was or how difficult it was to beat.

But now, "challenge" is a dirty word when it comes to gaming. It's probably not even in the top 5 of things people care about when it comes to reviewing games. How did this happen?

I think things started to shift when the Playstation era started. People started to focus a lot more on graphics and "cinematic" experiences. In fact I think the 32bit era of games was probably the worst when it came to "easy" games. I think things only started to shift back recently, with games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne, so now "hard" games are sort of cool again. But still, I don't think how hard a game is has anywhere near the importance as it used to have. How did this happen?

Also remember when game strategy guides were a thing? Those things don't exist anymore, either. When was the last time you were stuck in a game so badly, you had to look up how to beat a boss or solve a puzzle?

 

[ClickyCal']

Tropical freeze was rated low for being too hard.

 

[RockmanBN]

Don't Soulsborne games get praised for it?

 

[Command & Conker]

Don't Soulsborne games get praised for it?

Click to shrink...

Bloodborne was advertised as "less punishing" than Dark Souls.

https://www.vg247.com/2014/08/13/bl...nt-is-much-less-wider-audience-is-the-target/

 

[Deleted member 42102]

Come on now OP, think of the children. They can't handle any sort of difficulty, that's why Fortnite was a big failure!

 

[J75]

When was the last time you were stuck in a game so badly, you had to look up how to beat a boss or solve a puzzle?

Click to shrink...

Just a couple hours ago with Jedi Fallen Order

 

[Deleted member 59983]

Depends on the reviewer, the game, and what sort of challenge you're talking about.

A game getting pointlessly difficult and in unfair ways should be called out for artificially increasing challenge in ways which don't reward the player or encourage skill growth.

However at the same time just getting upset because a game is difficult/challenging doesn't really qualify being invalid criticism either because people do genuinely worry about that. For example I'm not typically looking for a soul crushingly difficult game like Bloodborne, Blood Bowl 2, or X-COM 2 unless I'm in the mood for that sort of experience. Otherwise I'm looking for something I can kick back and relax while playing in order to unwind at the end of my day.

Bloodborne was advertised as "less punishing" than Dark Souls.

https://www.vg247.com/2014/08/13/bl...nt-is-much-less-wider-audience-is-the-target/

Click to shrink...

I'd say Bloodborne is far more punishing than Dark Souls at the end the day. Having to purchase Blood Vials, much more aggressive enemies, no ability to guard, plenty more status effects including insanity, and much more really pushes the players in ways you just don't get on Dark Souls.

 

[skullmuffins]

Also remember when game strategy guides were a thing? Those things don't exist anymore, either. When was the last time you were stuck in a game so badly, you had to look up how to beat a boss or solve a puzzle?

Click to shrink...

i mean i'd lay the death of strategy guides on the internet more than anything. nobody but collectors want to buy a $20 guide when the answers are a google search away. (there are plenty of times i've looked up a solution to a puzzle or quest in relatively new game... I don't think this has disappeared????)

 

[Jarmel]

I think it depends on how a game is hard and not just that it is. I remember that reviewers loved F.E.A.R. for example because of the AI that would do all this flanking. Hell, Sekiro came out earlier this year.

Now if you're making a game difficult by just bumping up health bars and increasing enemy damage then it comes as cheap and frustrating in a boring and bland way.

 

[Wink784]

What was once a niche hobby now is a worldwide phenomenon. Videogames are growing, feeling out their potential and expanding what they can be. There are games that are challenging now and there are others which are not supposed to be, why hold on to stiff categories when reviewing them.

 

[mopinks]

using Challenge as one of the measures of a game's value always seemed limiting to me

some games are hard, some games aren't, and that's fine

 

[Deleted member 51691]

Challenge isn't really a good metric for determining the quality of a game because some games work great without a huge challenge while others suffer because they are too easy on the player. It varies from game to game, and marking a game down because it's not hard enough for you isn't always fair if the game doesn't need difficulty to be good.

 

[callamp]

Isn't this a byproduct of an era where most games were relatively short and, without challenge, possessed little replay value?

Games of the 8-bit and 16-bit era had their roots in arcade gameplay. Fun and short with challenge a key selling point. If a game can be completed in half an hour it needs something extra to keep a gamers attention. Games today are nothing like that and, with varying difficulty levels, challenge isn't particular relevant to most games.

 

[gaiages]

There are more parts to a game than just its challenge, but if you find how challenging a game is to be important to your experience, find reviewers that share the same mindset with you and read their reviews. Reviews are subjective and some reviewers will value certain aspects of games differently than you.

As for guides, they're the most lucrative thing for websites to make and writers to write for a reason. No one really uses physical strategy guides when you can just google the answer and ten websites have a quick guide for it already. It's just evolved, not disappeared.

 

[Window]

Good thing we've moved on from those days.

 

[skillzilla81]

Good thing we've moved on from those days.

Click to shrink...

And yet when we do get the rare game with challenge, like Sekiro, tons of people bitch and moan that this single game doesn't cater to their wants and needs.

 

[sredgrin]

This thread is r/gaming nonsense from 7 years ago. This generation has shown a marked rebound from last gen in terms of popular hard games and games that don't hold your hand. We just have had an AAA game from EA with the Star Wars license that is likely to make many casual players butt their heads against the wall. Incredibly hard raid content is in some of the most popular games of the gen that cater to your no-lifer needs. A lot of the most multiplayer games require far more teamwork and are often incredibly complicated.

The only real difference is, a lot of those hard games now also let the less hardcore play too. You can play Fallen Order on easy, or enjoy lots of other stuff in Destiny 2 besides the raid. You can play LoL, or Siege, or Overwatch by yourself for a quick burst of fun. Boo fucking hoo.

 

[MegaMix]

Back in the '90s there was this, very stupid, notion that the harder games were the better. Both due to being more "skillful" as well as getting "more for your money". This obviously is flawed in many ways, but especially today. For starters it depends on how the game is designed. Team Ninja titles tend to be very challenging to simply complete whether it's Nioh or Ninja Gaiden. Just getting through the game is challenge. In contrast Platinum Games titles aren't as challenging on the surface but are more so focused on players get a high score. Beating a mission in Bayonetta or chapter in Astral Chain isn't particularly difficult, but getting a high ranking is, which is what one could argue is how these games are intended to be played.

The other giant elephant in the room is that not every game is supposed to be difficult. Why on earth would I want "challenge" in a title like Life is Strange? It just doesn't fit.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

I think things only started to shift back recently, with games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne, so now "hard" games are sort of cool again.

Click to shrink...

I like fun games. I don't find difficult games like those to be fun so I'm glad "challenge" isn't an integral part anymore.

 

[Stefarno]

I also remember basically everyone playing those games using cheats.

 

[Command & Conker]

I think challenge was a necessity early on in gaming because of technical limitations. Mario was hard because if it were easy it'd take no time at all to beat. The difficulty added value since the size of the game is 32 kilobytes. Even in the n64 era, Rare said they added so much collection and side activities in DK64 so you got your money's worth.

Now games can have value without difficulty. Skyrim isn't difficult but it still gives you plenty to do. Now, are some games too easy? Yes. I think certain games are made to be easy to draw an audience, especially when they can give an appearance of difficulty. Take Fortnite, my nephew is awful at games but he's won a round of Fortnite. He focuses on the win and not the hundreds of games he lost. He can quickly get back into another game. He's not much better than when he started, but he can get a win every blue moon. To him, Fortnite is a hard game, even though it doesn't punish you for losing. I got him Hollow Knight and he dropped it immediately. Too hard, no instant gratification.

Certain games, in my opinion, are enhanced with difficulty. However any TellTale game wouldn't be improved with added difficulty. Depends on the focus. If story is the focus difficulty shouldn't be required. If gameplay is the focus I think the game should be challenging. My nephew would disagree with me.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I started with the NES.

 

[Window]

And yet when we do get the rare game with challenge, like Sekiro, tons of people bitch and moan that this single game doesn't cater to their wants and needs.

Click to shrink...

I'd take some forum bitching over professional reviews rating games based on the rigid notion of a challenge factor.

 

[StallionDan]

Most gamers are bad at games. For a game to have mass appeal it can't be too hard. Aim assist for example shouldn't even be a thing but it is because too many players cannot aim for shit.

Sucks if you like a challenge. Are several series I stopped playing due to lack of challenge.

 

[Jonathan Lanza]

As more and more different kinds of games were made and different kinds of gamers came to be with different taste; criteria was adjusted to be more encompassing of various different types of games and gamers.

 

[skillzilla81]

I'd take some forum bitching over professional reviews rating games based on the rigid notion of a challenge factor.

Click to shrink...

It wasn't just forums.

Tons of pieces by professional reviewers about it.

 

[Window]

It wasn't just forums.

Tons of pieces by professional reviewers about it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and I'd still take that over the previous era where games were judged based on difficulty. Video games don't inherently have to be challenging. Some games are better if they offer a challenge, others aren't.

 

[sredgrin]

It wasn't just forums.

Tons of pieces by professional reviewers about it.

Click to shrink...

Not really. It's still like, top 3 highest rated game this year. There is far more effusive praise from critics about the game than complaints about the difficulty.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Minus a few exceptions, nobody wants to read about 'challenging' games anymore.

Oh and regarding GamePro: Yes, they used to have a rating for challenge, but it was pretty redundant. Chances are if a game had a 5 in graphics, sound, control, and fun factor, then it received a 5 in challenge as well. After some time, GamePro adjusted their rating system so that instead of assigning a number, they just mention whether the difficulty is low, high, or can be adjusted to suit the player's needs.

 

[Dr. Mario]

A challenge rating in a review makes zero sense. Those report cards already never did, but a challenge category is extra dumb.

 

[Deleted member 49535]

I blame the Wii. That's when Nintendo went all out with the handholding.

 

[Calvarok]

most of the games i play require me to go to the internet to look up some obscure thing. if i didn't have the internet, i would still need a strategy guide, but i do.

games became more than just a means to challenge your rote memorization or twitch reaction skills. that's literally all that happened: the medium diversified. Book enthusiasts who only like books that have long strings of difficult unnecessary words in them solely because they find them difficult to read would be laughed out of any serious conversation. And games eventually became able to render an experience akin to reading a book, where the progression is about playing and enjoying the texture of the design rather than being smashed into the dirt by it. Or on the other end, it can be like solving a math problem, where information is clearly given and the solution to the problem is systemic.

Also, reviewers became better and less boilerplate writers.

Games whose appeal hinges on challenge by any definition still receive mentions of that, and games who partially would be helped by fair and balanced challenge are often criticized when they overshoot or underwhelm.

However no one specific type of challenge is seen as the only one that matters.

 

[Kapryov]

Back then games were more of a niche hobby than they are now, so the appeal that it could challenge seasoned players might've been appealing in reviews. Many people that owned a console likely already played the quarter-munching games of the arcade that were made to be overly difficult and wanted some of that at home.
Except that half of these console players probably used a lot of cheats anyway, which were printed in the very same magazines.

You can argue the original Playstation may have contributed to the move away from the "hardcore" style of gameplay, but I don't think it's to do with cinematic experiences necessarily. I just think it's because it just wasn't as niche anymore, and developers were opening their arms to a wider audience of varying skill levels. Then we had the Wii/360/PS3 gen, which pretty much completely disabled cheats altogether.

So yeah, I miss cheats. Where's my big head mode?

 

[Addleburg]

Even as a kid I never cared about the challenge of a game, just the "fun factor," if we wanna go with GamePro criteria.

I don't need every game to appeal to my preferences, but I definitely tend to prefer those that give people a range of choices when it comes to how they play games.

One of my friends is a huge Soulsborne fan who has beaten those games, plus Sekiro numerous times, and even he is happy to select the "I just want to enjoy the story" setting on games like Horizon and Detroit.

It wasn't just forums.

Tons of pieces by professional reviewers about it.

Click to shrink...

And yet it still got stellar reviews and acclaim.

 

[.exe]

For one, I don't think challenge is an inherent quality of every game that a game needs to be scored on. Back when save systems weren't commonplace it was one of the main ways to extend a game's longevity. I think the introduction and normalization of proper saves (not level codes) was initially really what drove game design away from making stupidly difficult games.

From there, like you said, the increased fidelity that came from the new consoles/PCs made it possible to explore genres that were less focused on intellectual or mechanical challenges and more on abstract concepts like the exploration of themes through the experience of playing or making characters more "verbose", i.e. increasing the amount of things you think about and do.

Generally, games have become more accessible, but games have also become more complex. At the simplest level, we have more buttons. Many games now have layers upon layers of systems alongside perhaps basic gameplay. There is more stuff to be thinking about and manage on the backend than before. You have your throwback games like Wolfenstein or Mario that are mostly pure and straightforward, but even the latest Mario has extra layers through he capture mechanic and Wolf has stealth mechanics. Zelda is now fully systems-driven even. There, the challenge is perhaps not in expressed in difficult fights but in the multiplicity of options to consider during or before an explicit action segment.

The internet is what killed strategy guides, not games becoming easier. Pokémon, some of easiest games of all time, had massive strategy guides. No need for that now when you can just open up Bulbapedia or Serebii.

 

[Aexact]

Isn't this a byproduct of an era where most games were relatively short and, without challenge, possessed little replay value?

Games of the 8-bit and 16-bit era had their roots in arcade gameplay. Fun and short with challenge a key selling point. If a game can be completed in half an hour it needs something extra to keep a gamers attention. Games today are nothing like that and, with varying difficulty levels, challenge isn't particular relevant to most games.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I think this is ultimately it. When games were ports from brutally hard arcade games intended to eat quarters, their console versions would have the same level of difficulty or greater to lengthen the experience.

Physical strategy guides are a relic. Even in 1995, GAMEFAQs existed and people commented on buying guides more as art books.

 

[DrBillRiverman]

Challenge is appropriate based on the game.

However a lot of AAA games present a game which feels like it should be challenging, but they don't commit out of fear or turning away the casual bux.

While you can bump up the difficultly setting, most games just tweak the health settings making the harder difficulties more of a slog than a challenge.

 

[Nekyrrev]

I mean there are still a lot of challenging games out there, coming out on a monthly basis.
Games are not one thing. Some aim to be challenging and focus on gameplay, other aim for a different kind of experience. Being hard is not a core value every video-game should share.
It's never been as varied as it is right now, you just have to know where to look.

Btw every game has a strategy guide, it's called Internet :D less charming of course, but way cheaper too.

 

[Bob Beat]

Challenge can be an arbitrary device that isn't well thought out. Think of the nes games that just threw crap at you. Tmnt just made it hard to walk across a gap. They placed a gap when most games required you to jump so most people tried to jump. Nope, sorry, this is hard. And it was bullshit.

VG make up rules and don't necessarily tell you the rules. Any industry that forces people to make a guide to understand a game and need that guide or get frustrated with the game needs to evaluate it's bullshit challenge ideas.

I would say a small number of games understand challenge and present it well. Challenge isn't some in joke the devs made up. Even Zelda. 'Hey, burn THIS bush.'

Are you fucking kidding me? All these bushes, no heads up and I'm just supposed to randomly burn this bush? At least Nintendo now recognizes how random it's logic used to be. Made a whole magazine just because of shit like this.

 

[Kinsei]

I would say a small number of games understand challenge and present it well. Challenge isn't some in joke the devs made up. Even Zelda. 'Hey, burn THIS bush.'

Are you fucking kidding me? All these bushes, no heads up and I'm just supposed to randomly burn this bush? At least Nintendo now recognizes how random it's logic used to be. Made a whole magazine just because of shit like this.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying the first Zelda doesn't have cryptic stuff, but people stating this example is a pet peeve of mine. Who wouldn't think to burn that bush?

 

[CaptSpaulding]

I like fun games. I don't find difficult games like those to be fun so I'm glad "challenge" isn't an integral part anymore.

Click to shrink...

Why do you find games fun, then? As opposed to say, just watching a really good movie or show on Netflix? Isn't being challenged a huge part of what makes games "fun"?

BTW, there is also good challenge vs bad challenge, like others have said. I think an example of "bad challenge" is that bush burning example in Zelda.

I usually find that the best games out there are the ones that challenge you both mentally and physically. An example is my current favorite franchise EDF, which requires both good shooting skills, as well as being able to strategize. Because you can't just rush in leeeroy jenkins style and expect to win, especially the harder levels. Some of my most rewarding gaming experiences has been playing EDF on Inferno difficulty, getting my ass kicked the first 10 times or so, but slowly figuring out step by step a strategy to beat the level.

 

[Jane]

I'm of the opinion that scoring games using subcategories like that is inherently foolish unless they're very broad (e.g. overall enjoyment, value for money). What about story-driven games or visual novels that don't even have a traditional failure state? Would you have to dock points because of the lack of challenge? (Tbh I'm opposed to giving numerical scores to games in general lol, but evaluating games based some arbitrarily decided subcategories is especially bad)

I'm not saying the first Zelda doesn't have cryptic stuff, but people stating this example is a pet peeve of mine. Who wouldn't think to burn that bush?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that one is pretty telegraphed, but there are a lot of bushes and bombable walls in the game that have no indication whatsoever.

 

[Deleted member 1589]

Isn't being challenged a huge part of what makes games "fun"?

Click to shrink...

Depends. There are times when I love just trying to survive in Spelunky, or a Soulsborne game.

Right now though Ive been pretty busy and frazzled. A game like Pokemon or Football Manager is perfect when taking a break.

 

[Deleted member 51789]

Why do you find games fun, then? As opposed to say, just watching a really good movie or show on Netflix? Isn't being challenged a huge part of what makes games "fun"?

BTW, there is also good challenge vs bad challenge, like others have said. I think an example of "bad challenge" is that bush burning example in Zelda.

I usually find that the best games out there are the ones that challenge you both mentally and physically. An example is my current favorite franchise EDF, which requires both good shooting skills, as well as being able to strategize. Because you can't just rush in leeeroy jenkins style and expect to win, especially the harder levels. Some of my most rewarding gaming experiences has been playing EDF on Inferno difficulty, getting my ass kicked the first 10 times or so, but slowly figuring out step by step a strategy to beat the level.

Click to shrink...

People play different kinds of games for all sorts of reasons - fun, relaxation, challenge, a distraction. Some of these benefit from talking and praising challenge, others don't.

A review that focused on the challenge level of Animal Crossing is not a very good review, for instance

 

[Eumi]

Gamers matured and realised that challenge isn't at all an integral part of the medium. Well, some did, at least.

Hell, challenge isn't even so prominent in games for any artistic reason at all, but because so much of the culture of the medium is based on arcades, where challenge was how the companies made profit. When games moved out of the arcades, challenge just naturally came with it, like lives, because that's how people knew how to make games.

I really hope that people continue to become less and less attached to challenge as the default interaction within the medium, and we can continue to see creative explorations of how we can interact with games. But even the name, video games, makes me think that's going to be a struggle.

 

[skeezx]

reviews generally don't do point by point breakdowns anymore. "games" in 2019 are pretty broad to subject to a rigid checklist

i'd say in this post-Souls/competitive MP era challenge is a bigger thing than ever, though how reviews treat it i haven't really been paying attention

 

[TheYanger]

This thread is r/gaming nonsense from 7 years ago. This generation has shown a marked rebound from last gen in terms of popular hard games and games that don't hold your hand. We just have had an AAA game from EA with the Star Wars license that is likely to make many casual players butt their heads against the wall. Incredibly hard raid content is in some of the most popular games of the gen that cater to your no-lifer needs. A lot of the most multiplayer games require far more teamwork and are often incredibly complicated.

The only real difference is, a lot of those hard games now also let the less hardcore play too. You can play Fallen Order on easy, or enjoy lots of other stuff in Destiny 2 besides the raid. You can play LoL, or Siege, or Overwatch by yourself for a quick burst of fun. Boo fucking hoo.

Click to shrink...

Not sure what multiplayer games really have to do with it, since by definition you're looking at a 50/50 success rate ideally. single player games have definitely trended easier, even 'hard' games are easier than they were before. That said, they're also longer and longer and don't rely on that difficulty to provide ample playtime anymore either.

It gets trotted out al ot, but there's a BIG difference between buying a game every month and being 6 and getting Ninja Gaiden as your only video game for half a year.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Not sure what multiplayer games really have to do with it, since by definition you're looking at a 50/50 success rate ideally. [...]

Click to shrink...

The latest huge trend is multiplayer is to make that a 1/100 success rate. Or at least 1/8 for auto chess variants.

 

[Edgar]

Challenge in itself is one of the least important factors in gaming. Its cool where it serves the context like souls Games or some super hard racing sim. But other than that, I play games because I want to explore and experience particular media that doesn't require dying for an hour in one place and getting frustrated. The narrative, the world, the characters, visually stimulating aesthetics is why I like this medium.
Again it's cool when you have souls Games once every few years, because I enjoy novelty of challenge, but I'm glad it's not common in AAA space.

 

[Glio]

Luckily, we have made progress as a medium and each time we have less of the arcade times and artificial length

 

[Letsfly]

Sometimes I feel that lack of challenge is detrimental to the immersion and cohesiveness of the whole experience. For instance, take FFXV which has a very easy main story. At one point of the story I had to invade some imperial base fortified by gigantic robots. It was easier than complete that random and inconsequential hunt quest that I got from the restaurante owner minutes ago. That's a problem I believe.