What is your opinion on challenge in gameplay? What makes a game challenging?

[somerandomdude]

It seems to vary wildly depending on who you ask, because the very nature of challenge is subjective as is each individual's approach to games in general.

For a game to be challenging to me, it needs to still be able to kick my ass repeatedly in spite of my best efforts of using all the tools available to the best of my knowledge and ability. A game where you have to take a limited approach and not use certain things in order to artificially engineer a challenge is not a challenging game, IMO.

Thoughts?

[MadPreacher]

The ability for the programmers to outwit you as a player in using puzzles that require logic. That's challenging.

[Acrux]

I think of it as a puzzle that doesn't only have one correct answer. There are multiple ways you can achieve success, but it takes effort on the part of the player to figure that out.

Also, and I guess as part of that, would be enemies that are designed to respond to player actions. If I use invisibility to sneak attack, a later character might use True Seeing to make me have to change tactics. Knowing to attack mages or clerics first (but not just rushing them no matter what), or closing in on archers to make them less viable.

[GothGirlSupremacy]

Game knowledge and execution.

[somerandomdude]

Game knowledge and execution.

I agree, and I'd place an emphasis on the fact that you should need both in an action based game or platformer. If someone could go into it totally blind with zero knowledge and trivialize it, even someone who's good at these games, then it's an easy game, IMO. That would imply that the timings are too loose, the maps/levels are too simple, and the enemy AI is too predictable if execution by itself is all that's needed to win. It's also true in the opposite, IMO, especially if it's an action game, or a platformer where execution plays a factor.

[WhiteShark]

I consider that there are two types of difficulty: 'puzzle difficulty' and 'action difficulty'.

Puzzle difficulty is purely intellectual. It is the difficulty present when searching for a (or the) solution to a problem. Once the solution to a given problem is found, this type of difficulty disappears: one may simply repeat the solution when confronted with the same problem.

Action difficulty is mechanical. It is the difficulty present when executing the solution. This type of difficulty is only present in real time games. It's different from puzzle difficulty in that, while it may diminish as the player becomes more skilled, it doesn't disappear: executing the solution once doesn't guarantee you can execute it successfully again.

Because action difficulty is everpresent in realtime, it's not hard to make a challenging realtime game, so I will instead focus on games centered around puzzle difficulty. The key thing is to have a system of sufficient complexity to generate meaningfully varied situations such that the game doesn't descend into monotonous repetitions of known solutions. The game needs to routinely force the player to search for new solutions lest it become solved and therefore boring.

Roguelikes are excellent in this regard. Character stats, positioning, items, environment -- the wealth of variables combined with randomized levels produces a trove of unique situations that often require unique solutions. Even when it seems the same solution can be applied, the player still must be ever cautious that he hasn't missed some key difference that renders the known solution nonviable.

Subjectively, I agree with @somerandomdude: I want the game to beat me up and take my lunch money right up until I git gud. I become distressed if I have gotten through a large chunk of a game without hitting a game over. I would rather fail to make progress in a game that's too hard for me than snooze through a game designed with journos in mind.

Self-imposed restrictions are an interesting point. If I have to invent them myself partway through the game then I'll probably just quit instead because I can't know if my restrictions produce a viable challenge in the long run. On the other hand, if there's some sort of community-agreed standard set of restrictions, I might try it. It still sucks and reflects badly on the game, but at least that way I can trust that it's been tested and shown to provide a better experience.

[Gregz]

A game doesn't need to be challenging, it just needs to convince the player it's challenging.

[rusty_shackleford]

What makes a game challenging? Anything but puzzles, surely.

I hate puzzles because puzzles are artificial. I find no challenge in them, just annoyance. They do not lend themselves to creative problem solving, all you are solving is the solution that was intended by the puzzle's designer. And worst of all, very few puzzles ever have a good justification for existing in the gameworld.
If someone asks me for an example of a good puzzle, I couldn't give them one. I don't think there's such a thing. If someone asked me for a single example of a great problem, I'd just have to point at the Gordian Knot. Everyone before Alexander treated it as a puzzle and failed, they worked within the artificial rules given to them. Alexander treated it like a problem, disregarded the rules, and solved it.
Let me take the classic two guards, one tells the truth, one always lies as an example. You're expected to use a contrived ruleset designed explicitly for that puzzle to solve it. But... why? What would it look like if it was treated as a problem?
Well, a bit like this actually:


What makes a game challenging? Difficult problems with open-ended solutions.

[somerandomdude]

A game doesn't have to be very challenging to be enjoyable, but some semblance of a challenge keeps a game from being boring to play. Most turn based RPGs for example, it's hard to find a semblance of a challenge without resorting to "self imposed limitations", but it might be good enough to play through once because you enjoy it for other reasons. Then comes the question of why make a non-challenging game challenging with self-imposed limitations when you're not even playing it for the challenge, and only plan to play a single playthrough?

I agree with Rusty about puzzles, I don't like puzzle games either, because they're zero dopamine games for me. Chances are, I already know the solution, or in the cases where I don't, it's as simple as trial and error, or I possibly missed a really vague hint somewhere.

[WhiteShark]

Yes, most puzzles in RPGs are bad and out of place. I call the difficulty in solution-seeking 'puzzle difficulty' because single-solution puzzles are the epitome of this type: solve it once, solved forever.

A game doesn't have to be very challenging to be enjoyable, but some semblance of a challenge keeps a game from being boring to play. Most turn based RPGs for example, it's hard to find a semblance of a challenge without resorting to "self imposed limitations", but it might be good enough to play through once because you enjoy it for other reasons. Then comes the question of why make a non-challenging game challenging with self-imposed limitations when you're not even playing it for the challenge, and only plan to play a single playthrough?

Because it's more fun to play a game that's challenging and good in other ways than it is to play a game that's a cakewalk but good in other ways. Of course, this assumes the self-imposed restrictions aren't completely retarded.

[wndrbr]

I like it when the game actually demands you to use the various tools and consumables, usually I tend to hoard them for the rainy day that never comes.

[wndrbr]

A game doesn't have to be very challenging to be enjoyable

Challenge is the meaning of the game. If the game doesn't challenge you, then it's just rote grinding.
Even the kiddie games need to be somewhat challenging.

[viata]

The ability for the programmers to outwit you as a player in using puzzles that require logic. That's challenging.

Which is why I like to play puzzle games. Most of them are quite challenging and in case of games like Championship Lode Runner, it was create to make you rage most of the time and happy when you clear a stage.

[somerandomdude]

A game doesn't have to be very challenging to be enjoyable

Challenge is the meaning of the game. If the game doesn't challenge you, then it's just rote grinding.
Even the kiddie games need to be somewhat challenging.

Which is pretty much what I implied, but you cut the other half of the sentence in that quote. There's games that are mildly to moderately challenging that aren't very challenging.

[MadPreacher]

The ability for the programmers to outwit you as a player in using puzzles that require logic. That's challenging.

Which is why I like to play puzzle games. Most of them are quite challenging and in case of games like Championship Lode Runner, it was create to make you rage most of the time and happy when you clear a stage.

Most people think that I was talking about actual puzzles that require a solution that can only be solved once. To me a puzzle is such a broad concept that encompasses character builds to strategies for dealing enemies etc... All of them are puzzles and all of them require unique solutions. As long as those solutions are logical I have no problem with them.

[Lhynn]

Really depends what you mean by challenge, does the player control the result or is luck involved? If so how much?

I enjoy a good challenge when it makes sense. For example in underrail I remember playing on hard, as a brawler. Id get a ton of low damage attacks that both gave me extra movement if they landed and would cause effects depending on how many a given enemy took, so fighting became about creativity and calculations. It became about knowing your enemy and knowing your own capabilities. It was just that sweet middle point in which youd struggle but success was all about the player tactics and overall strategy.

Then came unfair or insanity or whatever the latest difficulty was called, and youd find bandit encampment with more enemies, youd find hidden enemies everywhere and they had stats that made you feel like a cripple. The approach to gameplay changed drastically, suddenly you had to start playing the game methodically, you could not afford to make mistakes and a bit of bad luck could cost you the fight. Suddenly the game became a dull chore.

[Dead]

Puzzles generally detract from RPGs, but if they serve a sensible purpose in a game's setting, and if you can bypass them with relevant abilities, they can be fine. If a game gives you a simple puzzle that "no one has ever solved before" except the player who is unlikely to be the smartest person in any world, and the puzzle forces you to use special rules that are incongruous with the rest of the game, it's uninteresting and ruins that part of the game. If a puzzle is used for sensible purposes like filtering out idiots during recruitment for a secret group, or serving as a home security system to repel low-intelligence burglars, and lets you use abilities that you've been using in the rest of the game, like ignoring the puzzle by confusing the test administrator, or crushing the door, with appropriate and preferably varied consequences for each method of engaging the puzzle, it can be fine.

[GothGirlSupremacy]

From a fighting game perspective, the challenge of knowing match-ups, knowing moves to their frames, knowing what a character does, knowing how to execute a gameplan, and knowing how to fuck with your opponent is all one big challenge.

The best part is through time, commitment, and experience, you yourself start to become the challenge for a lesser player. I firmly believe in gatekeeping. In multiplayer games, I highly recommend you do not give a shit and worry if the other player is having fun and if you should ease up. You should never ease up. You should beat them into the dirt and make them feel like they just wasted their money on this game. If they leave that game or genre entirely, you did your job and prevented a loser from infiltrating your ranks. If they stick around and try to climb the mountain to adequacy then they can be worthy of acknowledgment if they ever get there.

I even keep smurf accounts for some games purely so I can terrorize new players and show them no mercy. It physically sickens me that they think they deserve to exist in such a realm of competition. If I had to spend hours in training mode and getting my ass beat, so will you.

[Gastrick]

Challenge is when you die several hundred times and boss battles take 6 hours to win. Anything less is for pussies.

[fork]

Intricate movement mechanics like in FPSs of old, especially Quake and Quake3; strafe jumping, circle, rocket & grenade jumping, plasma climbing, knowing how and when to do those! Item timing (no, not camping, not with an onscreen countdown per item, just a timer and doing the counting for 4 or 5 items in your mind), knowing where the opponent is and what he knows about the respawning items, anticipating the path he might take and how long it will take him to get there, luring him into traps, proficiency with the weapons, knowing when to use which one etc..

Don't get me started on Broodwar.

[Fargus]

My opinion? Decent rewarding challenge is good. Tryhard shit that makes you waste time is bad.

[somerandomdude]

Challenge is when you die several hundred times and boss battles take 6 hours to win. Anything less is for pussies.

Who even makes games that difficult? I would have to go back to my childhood when I sucked at games to recall getting an ass kicking that hard. Outside of super boss in a game that requires you really optimize your build/setup in order to win, I can't think of any situations where a boss would be that difficult. IMO, If you lose more than about a dozen times to a boss, then you need to take a step back and re-analyze your entire approach to the game, and make some big changes. I like it when a game makes me rethink my strategy and approach, and any sufficiently challenging game should make a player do that once or twice, IMO.

[WhiteShark]

Challenge is when you die several hundred times and boss battles take 6 hours to win. Anything less is for pussies.

Who even makes games that difficult? I would have to go back to my childhood when I sucked at games to recall getting an ass kicking that hard. Outside of super boss in a game that requires you really optimize your build/setup in order to win, I can't think of any situations where a boss would be that difficult. IMO, If you lose more than about a dozen times to a boss, then you need to take a step back and re-analyze your entire approach to the game, and make some big changes. I like it when a game makes me rethink my strategy and approach, and any sufficiently challenging game should make a player do that once or twice, IMO.

I don't know if it took me a full 6 hours, but the final boss of Rabi-Ribi's main story forced me to go on multiple walks to cool off and recharge before I could beat her. If we're restricting ourselves to RPGs, I recall the optional fight with the soldiers in Voidspire Tactics took many attempts and multiple hours to beat as well, though certainly less than 6.

[somerandomdude]

I don't know if it took me a full 6 hours, but the final boss of Rabi-Ribi's main story forced me to go on multiple walks to cool off and recharge before I could beat her. If we're restricting ourselves to RPGs, I recall the optional fight with the soldiers in Voidspire Tactics took many attempts and multiple hours to beat as well, though certainly less than 6.

The last time I took a serious ass kicking in a game was in Bloodborne, years ago. Orphen of Kos kicked my ass probably 40-50x, I lost count, it could have possibly been more. I spend at least 2-3hrs on that 1 fight. I can say that Orphen of Kos took more attempts total than every single boss in Dark Souls 3 & Elden Ring combined. Bloodborne was great, I wish they'd port it to PC.

[WhiteShark]

The last time I took a serious ass kicking in a game was in Bloodborne, years ago. Orphen of Kos kicked my ass probably 40-50x, I lost count, it could have possibly been more. I spend at least 2-3hrs on that 1 fight. I can say that Orphen of Kos took more attempts total than every single boss in Dark Souls 3 & Elden Ring combined. Bloodborne was great, I wish they'd port it to PC.

Same, then I could actually play it. I've only played DS1 and 2, but Ornstein and Smough gave me the most trouble in those. I was using a big stupid axe with a long recovery time so it was very difficult finding windows of opportunity to safely attack. It probably would have been easier if I had just changed my weapon and playstyle but I was stubborn.

[somerandomdude]

Same, then I could actually play it. I've only played DS1 and 2, but Ornstein and Smough gave me the most trouble in those. I was using a big stupid axe with a long recovery time so it was very difficult finding windows of opportunity to safely attack. It probably would have been easier if I had just changed my weapon and playstyle but I was stubborn.

I had to take a totally different approach to Bloodborne than I did with Dark Souls, it honestly threw me off in a big way initially, because I was trying to play the game like it was Dark Souls, and I got my ass handed to me early on as well, so I had to adapt. I honestly felt like I might have been better off had I gone into Bloodborne without ever playing a Souls-Like, then I could have simply learned how to play the game without having to unlearn habits from playing previous, similar titles. It's harder for me to unlearn a bad habit than is to learn something new, and that sums up why I had a more difficult time with Bloodborne than in other Souls-likes.

[Tweed]

I like challenging gameplay if it doesn't require a long delay to try again if I fail. If I have to go through an entire dungeon and then sit through a boss monologue then I'm going to get sick of it real quick. Knights of the Chalice 2 does it right, if you don't win initiative just reload the game. If you don't take out half of the room on the first round, just reload the game.

[WhiteShark]

I like challenging gameplay if it doesn't require a long delay to try again if I fail. If I have to go through an entire dungeon and then sit through a boss monologue then I'm going to get sick of it real quick. Knights of the Chalice 2 does it right, if you don't win initiative just reload the game. If you don't take out half of the room on the first round, just reload the game.

I was nodding along until you cited those examples. A game where you have to save scum initiative doesn't sound like "getting it right" at all, lol.

[Tweed]

I like challenging gameplay if it doesn't require a long delay to try again if I fail. If I have to go through an entire dungeon and then sit through a boss monologue then I'm going to get sick of it real quick. Knights of the Chalice 2 does it right, if you don't win initiative just reload the game. If you don't take out half of the room on the first round, just reload the game.

I was nodding along until you cited those examples. A game where you have to save scum initiative doesn't sound like "getting it right" at all, lol.

I was half-joking. KotC 2 doesn't get that part right at all, but it does reload quickly. Although it does make me ask how often should you be saving and reloading before the challenge in a game is flawed. In KotC 2 you're pretty much required to give all of your characters improved initiative and KotC 2 isn't the only RPG with the "go first or die" or "one round everyone down" problem.

[WhiteShark]

I was half-joking. KotC 2 doesn't get that part right at all, but it does reload quickly. Although it does make me ask how often should you be saving and reloading before the challenge in a game is flawed. In KotC 2 you're pretty much required to give all of your characters improved initiative and KotC 2 isn't the only RPG with the "go first or die" or "one round everyone down" problem.

It's not really about the quantity of reloading so much as the reason for it. If a fight is simply hard, then it's fine if you need to retry a lot. On the other hand, if it's "hard" because RNG can totally throw you under the bus on a single roll, that's not good at all. It's fine if there's a remote chance that freak RNG can screw you over the course of multiple rolls, but if a single roll routinely makes-or-breaks a fight, that's bad design.