It's hard for hard to make a hard difference

[octavian]

Reading what players are saying on the game being too easy or hard I took a look at the Steam page, 95% of 6901 user reviews are positive, so I fail to see what's the issue. The game is 6 months away from release, difficulty has no bearing on story and the alpha reception is overwhelmingly positive.

If life was about making it harder you'd be eating spaghetti hanging upside down and on Fridays you'd say: "Honey, honey bunny, this is Lilith, she's a one-year old starving wolverine on cocaine, and she will join us in bed tonight. We're stepping it up, to the next difficulty level." The challenge is to make life easier, not harder. People like challenging, theoretical physicists, athletes, surgeons; but if you ask them they'll tell you its easier for them than not to do it. If you wanted difficult, you'd live in the woods against your will, not play pretend that you do. Hypocrisy, eh? Developers give players a fantasy of difficulty in a way that makes easy seem hard. Otherwise hard embodied hard and going on an ego trip because you're playing the game on the hardest difficulty would be hard. Life rewards easy after hard, strandkorb on the roof, a book a bottle of Lillet and a calico cat; the game doesn't pay off easy after hard, it just dies.

All Pilgrim Voyageur and Stalker mean is how much time it takes to make your life easier. Once you do it, there's no more challenge, which means no more opposition, and that's it, you're done. That's also when a story ends, story breathes opposition, don't have it, story's over. I'll say what's too obvious to say, for that reason alone. There's nothing to do. This is why players care about difficulty, artificially prolonging a journey due to the lack of a destination, hoping that, maybe, they'll figure out where they're going. "This isn't it, arrived here too fast and there's nothing to do here, it's further ahead." Does this sound logical to you?

We should talk about how we're here and there's nothing to do, not how easy arriving was, and just so you know I'm using "we" as the majestic plural in case this confused you. Ideally we'd focus on exploration, now that we won't freeze or starve anytime soon. But focus is on survival, nine achievements deal with how long you survive, just to make sure we don't miss the point, nine, stopping short of more than we have fingers to count. There's also the survival panel, keeping track of how long we survived for. And achievements make clear what exploration is: visit every interior. It's the exploration part in the "thoughtful, exploration-survival experience" part, which you already do through the survival part. I'd prefix each achievement with "explore", wouldn't you? Explore harvesting 25 of each plant, plants are useful if you get sick. Explore finding a specific place to click, don't just click anywhere, do it in the right place, explore, find the right place to click and click to pick. You did reach your destination, a long time ago. Nothing was there so you kept on going, now you're in the middle of nowhere, daydreaming about wolf pelt pouches and you just might reach Antarctica.

Players find any of the difficulty levels hard because they keep doing what doesn't work instead of trying something else. They're either having the cockamamie idea of video games being complex or insist playing how they want to. 95% of the 95% are gamers that know how you'd like to play and video games are contradictory ideas. Underneath those pixels there's a contrived simple toy. Harder difficulty equals fewer choices, less ways you can survive, a superhuman difficulty level would simply mean there is only one way to survive, a timetable, you would have no other choice. Civ 5 Deity difficulty, The Long War Impossible, all decent strategy games have strict timings. Not because they're strategy games, it's simply what hard is. Doesn't sound like "a thoughtful, exploration-survival experience that challenges solo players to think for themselves" to have a schedule.

But 95% have no problem with getting to Antarctica, why bother arguing, words and thoughts are hard, players love the game so it must be good and we the fringe people are wrong saying it's borked. No point writing more on a problem that doesn't exist for at least 95%.

And don't say out loud the player doesn't know what he/she wants. "Life confused you and you can't tell or figure out what you want anymore. Transaction denied. VALVe will personally work out what's a better game for you, what you "really" want. Thank you."

[Naut]

All Pilgrim Voyageur and Stalker mean is how much time it takes to make your life easier. Once you do it, there's no more challenge, which means no more opposition, and that's it, you're done. That's also when a story ends, story breathes opposition, don't have it, story's over. I'll say what's too obvious to say, for that reason alone. There's nothing to do. This is why players care about difficulty, artificially prolonging a journey due to the lack of a destination, hoping that, maybe, they'll figure out where they're going. "This isn't it, arrived here too fast and there's nothing to do here, it's further ahead." Does this sound logical to you?

We should talk about how we're here and there's nothing to do, not how easy arriving was,

The fun in this game is when you are "in the process of dying". Death is the final destination, atleast at the moment, without the story. So making it harder "to live" also means you spent more time "dying" which means more fun until you eventually die and the game ends.

When the story is here, maybe there is another final destination, only that this destination probably uses more predefined events and or words to describe it. But it doesnt matter, the game ends there, and the most fun will still be the moments when you were dying.

[octavian]

The fun in this game is when you are "in the process of dying" (...) So making it harder "to live" also means you spent more time "dying" which means more fun until you eventually die and the game ends.

If this is true you don't need difficulty modes for this, just play on Pilgrim, run around naked, don't eat, don't drink, you die slower, so by your logic it's more fun this way. Short of death eat some hot tomato soup, rinse, repeat, you can have "fun" for a long time this way.

[Naut]

The fun in this game is when you are "in the process of dying" (...) So making it harder "to live" also means you spent more time "dying" which means more fun until you eventually die and the game ends.

If this is true you don't need difficulty modes for this, just play on Pilgrim, run around naked, don't eat, don't drink, you die slower, so by your logic it's more fun this way. Short of death eat some hot tomato soup, rinse, repeat, you can have "fun" for a long time this way.

Well sure, but unfortunatly the fun stops for me when i have to artificially handycap myself like this. But the essence of what this game is about (atleast at the moment) would still be the same. You micromanage a limited amount of ressources, and the more efficient you are at it, the longer you will survive. Barely escaping death at times is when the fun is most intense.

[octavian]

Barely escaping death at times is when the fun is most intense.

One month into Stalker when you're not lacking anything you need to survive? If you take unnecessary risks that put you in a position where you do barely escape death isn't that artificially handicapping yourself too?

You micromanage a limited amount of ressources, and the more efficient you are at it, the longer you will survive.

Survive longer just to increase a number? I have no problem with that, I'm not telling you how to play the game, but I think gameplay should shift focus from survival to exploration when survival is no longer an issue.

[Aramike]

I'm normally extremely careful as to criticize what people enjoy and why. Some folks play games for the experience and prefer to sit back, relax, and enjoy the vista. Others play for the challenge and prefer curveballs over fastballs.

There's nothing wrong with either. The Long Dark is cursed with that it provides both so very well, that people who play continuously want more; they want a constantly refreshed game. This is why the reviews are so lopsided to the positive and the feedback is all around the margins.

Hinterland appears to have adopted the correct approach: take and encourage as much feedback as possible and adopt what they feel adds to the game they are trying to make.

Feedback on one's entertainment preferences is not right or wrong; it just is.

[Naut]

One month into Stalker when you're not lacking anything you need to survive? If you take unnecessary risks that put you in a position where you do barely escape death isn't that artificially handicapping yourself too?

Thats the whole point. If its hard enough, you (optimaly) never reach a status where you not lack anything. It wont be necessary to take unnecessary risks anymore, because it will be necessary risks, optimaly.

Survive longer just to increase a number? I have no problem with that, I'm not telling you how to play the game, but I think gameplay should shift focus from survival to exploration when survival is no longer an issue.

No im not doing it for numbers. I just described how the game is now. I would welcome more goals to achieve in this game next to survive aslong as possible. Exploration is a nice concept, but at the moment it only serves the ressource managment aspect of the game, it has no other purpose unfortunatly. (Well it is nice to walk in a snow landscape, but yeah)

[octavian]

I would welcome more goals to achieve in this game next to survive aslong as possible. Exploration is a nice concept, but at the moment it only serves the ressource managment aspect of the game, it has no other purpose unfortunatly. (Well it is nice to walk in a snow landscape, but yeah)

We agree then

[Incariuz]

POST EDIT

Ok I'm gonna chime in a bit, hopefully the fact I'm still not fully awake doesn't cause confusion.

TLD has stellar reviews, one of which are by me, and I'm sure others who have been asking for more challenge have also given great reviews. What we also need to keep in mind though is the fact that 13.7% of the total player base has obtained the survive 2 days achievement, which says to me that a mass majority of people who purchased the game are not playing anymore. With that being said, statistics don't always define the value of a product, nor do ratings/reviews, but I still love this game. Now onto the topic of many of us asking for more challenge. The challenge everyone has been asking for is for 2 reasons (I think).

Reason One is to provide things for the player to do, due to lack of necessities at this time. For example, colder houses, so spare time can be spent gathering wood to keep your home warm for the sake of something to do other then just sleeping. Sleeping has become the number one thing to do once an in game week has passed, which does two things. Makes the game easier due to low calorie drain (which also reduces the need to explore), and bores the player with repetition.

Reason Two is to give a bit of purpose to exploration. In the beginning, it's beneficial to move as fast as possible to find good clothing, food, and tools/weapons. This will often lead to the majority of the map being explored very very fast, leaving little to no reason to explore at a slow pace. This is where requests like changes in animal spawns come into play. Right now, a player simply needs to walk for a minute to find some rabbits, or fish or deer (or bear in the case of pleasant valley). By altering position of spawns, and increasing migration areas, players will need to look a bit more for food, chance more encounters with wolves (which does not have to mean getting attacked), causing them to have to reroute. This would promote scouting, finding elevation where possible to get a surrounding view and select targets. In doing things like this, it also puts the player in positions where they may notice something they hadn't before, or give them the chance to appreciate the beauty in the design of an area they usually run past in a minute.

That being said, I personally do crave challenge a lot, I didn't add it as a major reason because I really don't know about others. To me a game is an activity with a set goal, or variety of goals that presents options for obtaining the goals rewarding the player. It's a form of mental stimulation, which leaves a player feeling a level of accomplishment. Games often have achievements to be obtained now, but I feel those often have the opposite effect of what they should, and also encourage specific styles of play that take away from the overall experience. For example, getting the 100 day achievement on here was pretty boring, and I don't even want to try for the 200 day one because I'll likely not desire playing the game anymore. A challenge that would provide the feeling of accomplishment for me would be striving to constantly do better, analyze choices more, consider risks vs rewards, and attempt new strategies that may provide growth. Having the game where dying after 25 days was probable would be ideal for me. Striving to survive a few days more the next time around, and so on. But when the game is in a state where surviving for 200+ days can be done with little to no effort, I don't feel the level of accomplishment I'd like, and the amount of time spent doing it, or the boredom incurred while doing so, reduces the desire to try again.

This is all just a matter of the sandbox though, the purpose of it in itself to me is survival. It may be a game, but I still feel the need to approach it from a logical stand point as I would in my everyday life, trying to determine the best possible choices, making mistakes and learning, and sometimes falling victim to unforeseen or undesirable circumstances that although may bring me down temporarily, fuel me with a drive to push forward and do better.

When the story mode becomes available, I have no idea what to expect from it, and although hope it has challenging elements still, it won't require as much because it will have a different approach to being engaging, and mentally stimulating. However if it is limited on choices, the replay ability will be limited, and the sandbox will likely be where people end up spending most their time still.

Anyway, with all that being said, as I stated, I still love this game, I've gotten my monies worth out of it, and it is a game I will always come back to here and there down the road for a bit of fun. However that will never change my desire for changes I'd like to see, though I don't expect them to be done, I just remain hopeful. As someone who has had little success within game development (2 flopped titles at this point), I understand financial and time constraints on games, the complications that can arise as the development process advances further and further, technical limitations in certain situations and so on, thus I will never give the Hinterlands team a hard time if they choose not to do something I desire, but I'll still put it out there for consideration.

[Naut]

Another thing is that its kind of hard to give feedback of the game, when we dont know yet what the finished product should look like. I mean at the moment its a sandbox in which we survive and have fun (to a point). But we can only provide feedback to this (limited) gameplay. Not knowing what will come and how the story element changes the gameplay makes it impossible to give accurate suggestions on how to improve gameplay.

Is it even desired? I guess its meant to be a surprise what is still coming, so its an awkward situation.

[octavian]

Another thing is that its kind of hard to give feedback of the game, when we dont know yet what the finished product should look like. I mean at the moment its a sandbox in which we survive and have fun (to a point). But we can only provide feedback to this (limited) gameplay. Not knowing what will come and how the story element changes the gameplay makes it impossible to give accurate suggestions on how to improve gameplay.

Is it even desired? I guess its meant to be a surprise what is still coming, so its an awkward situation.

True, but then again when hinterlandbethany says something she's likely encouraging feedback. It's awkward but I don't think they're saying it just to be polite. I don't care if people agree with me or if anything I say ever reaches a dev. I'm having fun writing these and talking to people, if nothing else makes a slow forum day less slower.

[Naut]

POST EDIT

Reason One [...]

Reason Two [...]

For example, getting the 100 day achievement on here was pretty boring, and I don't even want to try for the 200 day one because I'll likely not desire playing the game anymore.

Well said.

[octavian]

Thank you for taking your time to reply Incariuz but addressing all the points you make would feel too much like repeating what I have already said on the forums too many times.

In doing things like this, it also puts the player in positions where they may notice something they hadn't before, or give them the chance to appreciate the beauty in the design of an area they usually run past in a minute.

Instead of adding a mechanic separate to survival to spend time purposely appreciating the beauty in the design of an area you usually run past in a minute? Like an instant camera or typewriter, a quick Rubik's solve on top of K2, anything.

[AmericanSteel]

There are a lot of good points made but I think the biggest is the nuances of play style. And that play style can change game to game. It also has a lot to do with risk vs reward and where the player is at that particular time in their journey.

When I am thin on supplies, injured or stuck in a bad spot I generally don't take risks. Moves are calculated to get me out of the situation I am in. The unknown wolf around the next bend, the impending storm I don't see or my lack of finding resources all hone the experience. You then get to the pivotal point where a particular action kills you or allows you to carry on. Sometimes it is a risk, sometimes it is just what the weather dumps on me.

When I am FDH (Fat, Dumb and Happy), I take risks. I am sitting high on resources. I know if something knocks me down that I can probably get back up. Sometimes that gets me in a situation where I have to fight off a wolf, get caught with my proverbial pants down because of the weather or just push myself a bit farther than the resources I carry allow. I am then thrown back into the calculation mode. I could sit at home and hibernate on my stock of winter stores and save precious resources. Instead I explore the unknowns with a pack of goodies enough to get me out and back, but leave room for loot I find along the way.

I handicap myself because the way I play is not efficient. It is also not boring. Its fun. And really that is the whole purpose of the game. Something to whittle away the hours on a weekend instead of tackling my honey-do list or working on my novel I make the game harder when times are good and let the game punish me when times are bad, forging my own harder difficulty. After all, if wanted easy I would not be playing Stalker.