Forums » Writing Workshop » Read Thread

I'm making a zombie horror/survival story-game. It'll be very realistic whereas most of the zombies pose a huge threat, none of that ''you run and notice an infected turning the same corner you're headed for. Once you're close enough, you grab the zombie by the collar of his blood-soaked, buttoned-down dress shirt and throw him out of the way''. But, would it be a bad idea to make it ''too'' hard?. I want my story-game to be featured, but I'm afraid people might give it a bad rating if it's too hard just because they can't beat it. 

If it's already good, make it hard. Making it really hard won't make it good automatically.

True. But despite if it will turn out good, i'm afraid that people will give it a bad rating if they get angry because they can't beat it. Sort of how people did with Tower of riddles in the beginning.

I normally think of the hardest stories as the best

For any game, any single type of game, the goal  to make sure it's challenging enough to be interesting but not so hard that it's frustrating. If you ask me, I wouldn't be too afraid of making a game "too hard." Some of the more well-loved games here could be considered difficult. If you want to make the game hard, make it hard. Just make sure it's hard for the right reasons.

Well you could make it so people can't actually rate it unless they beat it, thus ensuring that anyone who was persistent enough to stick with it is probably going to rate it highly.

Oh. I didn't know I could do that. Thanks Endmaster.

Just my opinion, but I absolutely hate "hard" games where you have to beat them in order to rate it.

It makes me think the writer knows their game is weak, and is actively attempting to prevent anyone from being able to comment.  

Too many games are difficult without being fun.  In most "hard" games, the difficulty doesn't serve the story at all.  It's just difficult because the author wanted it to be difficult. 

I plan on making it as fun as it will be difficult. Players will have to rate it by beating it so I can avoid anyone giving my game a 1/8 just because they couldn't beat it.

I agree. It's a part of what I meant earlier by saying games that are difficult should be difficult for the right reasons. Hard games that are hard so that people cannot rate it until they beat it is what I would consider artificial difficulty, a huge example of difficulty for the wrong reasons.

What would be the right reasons a game should be difficult?. It will be difficult because it will be realistic. And by that I mean.....would it really be easy to escape an outbreak?, a zombie outbreak at that. Ebola spreaded like wild-fire in Africa, Aids is global..I think. My point is, my difficulty will follow on how difficult the plot is.

That's a question even most game developers have trouble answering in practice. From me, through a player's perspective, games should be challenging but not frustrating or impossible and rewarding when you do pull through. If sounds like you want it to be difficult, because you want gritty realism and a proper challenge. That's fine.

I'm was more worried about the intent. I wouldn't want your game filled will a million game over pages and only one proper end route, purely to prevent people from rating your game badly. I hate to say it, but it sounds dishonest.

You have the wrong idea of what my intent for ''One Bite'', (The name of it), is. I want players to fill like there in an real zombie outbreak, and I want people to know how hard it would realistically be to escape one. I want it to be entertaining, difficult, and make people never want a zombie outbreak to ever really happen.

Oh, don't worry. I get it now. Intention like that is perfectly fine. A game that simulates realistic zombie outbreaks being difficult makes perfect sense.

But to answer your first question, I wouldn't worry about the it being too difficult. Be more concerned about good execution and making it a good game. It doesn't matter how hard or easy you make it, if you don't do it well. Give some of the readers some credit, too. Theoretically, if it's good, people will rate it well. So, I suggest making it as difficult as you want. Just do it well. Remember, some of the worst games I've played on this site has also been some of the easiest.

Really I was just pointing out that Timetodie had the option of doing it if he really wanted to.

Personally, I don't typically care for stuff you can't rate until you play through the whole thing either, but it is an option.

Okay, if that turns people away from the game then I'll give people the option to rate the game without beating it. But, why rate a game without playing through it first?.

If I've been going around in circles for 45 minutes, I want the option to quit.  Or, I don't want to sift through 356 "bad" endings, trying to find the one and only one that will let me rate the game.

If it's well done, I don't mind the idea of "there's a lot of ways to die, it's difficult to survive all the way to the end."

Well, there will a lot bad endings because the story is over once you get bit by an infected. There will also be a good story behind it if your patient enough to put together all the details.

I'm not a fan of 'difficult' choice-based games... but I'm not a fan of zombies or horror/survival, either, so my opinion probably isn't relevant. I'll say this, though: If you enjoy difficult games yourself, it might be reasonable for you to make one. If you don't... well, I'd think real hard about that.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

There's an immense difference between "difficult and enjoyable" and "difficult and frustrating."

And I would argue that it's very difficult (so to speak 9_9) to hit "difficult and enjoyable" with a choice-based game. I'd love to hear anyone's examples of it done well, though. ^_^

Secret of Daphne.

It's unlikely you'll get the "best" ending on your first play-through, but it's enjoyable enough that you want to go back and try to uncover all the secrets.

There's a few bits that are frustrating-difficult, but overall it's a lot of fun.

Plus, it's not impossible to get to the ending.  

In fact, @Timetodie , I'd suggest looking at how Daphne handles the multiple endings.  

If you're making a game where there's almost no way to live:  Instead of just telling the player of your game that they're dead, consider providing an explanation as to why they died, and suggestions as to how they can acheive a better ending.

Eh. Not really into the mystery/horror genre. Not really into replaying games to 'win,' either, though I can see how assuming people will be willing to do that lets you up the difficulty.