Difficult games aren't going anywhere, they're just changing

I frequently read that difficulty in games is going the way of the dodo. ‘Players don’t want challenges anymore, they want experiences. Punishing games such as Ghouls and Ghosts and Battletoads are a relic of the past, and designers have learned from their errors in difficulty tuning.’

With the release and warm reception of Demon’s Souls, however, could tricky games be making a comeback, or is this a brief aberration in the trend towards obscurity?

I don’t think difficulty in games is going anywhere. There is a demographic of gamer who likes a stiff challenge and there will always be developers who cater to them. I want to briefly analyze what challenges difficult games face in today’s market, whether difficult games can ever become mainstream again and if not, what form difficult games will take going forward.

Does difficulty just get in the way of fun?

The critical verdict on Demon’s Souls is that it’s hard. Not ‘Halo on Legendary’ modern-day hard, but ‘old school stab somebody in frustration’ hard. The Brainy Gamer has an insightful article about how this works for Demon’s Souls because it is consistently difficult and that difficulty serves a purpose. He argues that game difficulty when it’s consistent and pre-established is acceptable. As long as the world is fair and you aren’t merely being screwed by the random number generator, difficulty can be fun.

I would respond that difficulty for its own sake is not necessarily enjoyable, even if it’s explained beforehand and has a gameplay reason for its existence. If you set up a fictional world in which there’s a compelling plot reason for perma-death deleting your saved games and print it on the box cover, that doesn’t exempt a game from criticism.

Fans of challenging games argue that they improve game skill and make success more rewarding, while critics dislike decreased accessibility. The question then is how to make difficult games more accessible?

Here’s where the pictures start in – couldn’t get them to paste right, if you want to check out the rest feel free and discuss, otherwise SUMMARY: you can’t satisfy both hardcore and casual in the same game, difficult games have already started a trend towards simpler development teams, going to see more of the ‘extreme difficulty’ games appearing in downloadable titles etc.

http://www.backhandofjustice.com/difficult-games-aren%e2%80%99t-disappearing-they%e2%80%99re-changing/    

People cant even park their cars right...if that is such a challenge why would they want to make a effort at being good at something when they come home? 
 
....goddamit 

I think the average main-stream person who is jumping into gaming just wants to feel like a winner and developers are catering to that by giving them a "blue ribbon for participation"... except it comes in the form of "win game by pushing X button lots". There may be a niche for catering to "hard core" gamers, but do you have to be catering to the hard core gamer for your game to have a little more challenge than giving someone a puzzle... and then phrasing the challenge in a way that directly tells you exactly what to do? And then maybe walks you through doing it? It seems like there's this huge chasm that exists between "too easy" and "very difficult and hard core". And the excuse that is always used by developers is "we want every person to play to the end of the game and get their money's worth".
 
Maybe it's just my perception, but I really don't think most games should be something you can finish in eight hours. Hell, I just played Uncharted 1 and 2 on hard and finished both in no more than 20 hours, combined. To me, that says "it's a whole lot of just coasting through and not enough failing and having to try again until you figure it out". I have a (perhaps unfounded?) concern that gaming is following the trend of movies over the many decades. That trend being people mostly wanting to see movies where they don't have to think or be challenged in any way. And, because that's what the majority of people want, that's what produces cater to. Sure, you have your occasional indie flick that is amazing  -- but they're few and far between. Gaming is hitting the mainstream and that will mean catering to the lowest common denominator to satisfy the most people and move the most units. There will still be something solid for those seeking it out, but it will be much less common.
 
And you're right, I don't think you can satisfy both at the same time, because that usually is reduced to "okay, for harder difficulty, make the enemies absorb more bullets!". Meh.

Difficulty can get in the way of fun, but it doesn't have to. Hell, Warsong is a hard game, but I still love it. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'll let others fill them in.

Just tune the difficulty up people

"

I want to briefly analyze what challenges difficult games face in today’s market, whether difficult games can ever become mainstream again and if not, what form difficult games will take going forward.

"

It seems like hard to you is defined by a lack of checkpoints.  That's not hard because it's difficult in and of itself, it's just frustrating.  I enjoy a challenging game, but I don't want your definition of "hard" in anything I play.

i hate difficult games. it just gets me frustrated that i stop playing them. cod 4 on veteran i tried it i got a couple of levels through it then i just stopped playing it because of how hard the game is. all they did was throw a crap load of grenades at me.

i personally don't like really hard games, as there is enough frustrations in real life, to want it also in gaming. 
 
I prefer the medium dificulty. Not too easy, not too hard. 
 
And difficulty can get in the way of purchasing games, as i don't generally buy one i know it will let me furious, with randomness or with a challenge really out of this world, even if it is well explained. 
 
I think the dificulty levels should be better used in games. 
 
I'm, like the op said, in for the experience. 
 
But i don't see the real dificult ones desappearing.  
 
Ninja Gaiden is still in for the kicks with the third game on the works... 
 
Demon Souls... 
 
Atlus rpgs... 
 
etc... 
 
So don't worry too much about it. :)

You can always have options, so if people want it to be hard they can have that, and casuals can have what they want too.  Forza 3 does that.

I almost always play on easiest mode. It's not because I can't play on a harder difficulty, it's because I don't find it fun.
 
Like Persona 4. I could probably play that on Normal or Hard, but I choose to play it on Beginner (even on my NG+). Why? Because I play the game for the story and social interaction, not for the dungeon crawling.
 
However, some games I will play on harder difficulties, but that's a fair few.
 
For me, harder doesn't mean funner. The harder a game is, the less fun I have, actually.

I like hard games but not overly hard. Games are way too easy now. Like...way too easy...I don't want them super hard but I would still like them to be harder then the games we get now. Most games these days, you can learn the game mechanics in a few minutes then you can just blast through the entire game way to easily.

Play on hard.........

All I'll say about this is thank god for games with variable difficulty. RPG's seem to be the best at this, and Fallout 3 in particular was great, since you earned more experience for playing on a harder difficulty. RTS games are also good at this, although that can be a little more cheap.
 
Some games are hard by default, and I long ago learnt that I am not that good at games. So either I can admire games from a distance and enjoy them on a more basic level - games like fighting games, especially Street Fighter - or just accept that there are some games that I will never finish - platformers mostly. And Team Ninja games. Fuck Ninja Gaiden.

I sometimes play on easy if I'm not familiar with the games mechanics.  More often then not though I'll play on normal just to play the game the way its meant to be played, and still have a little challenge in it. I have a hard time staying interested in games that I can blow through on normal difficulty so I'll ramp it up to hard if I can. In my opinion games need to have SOME sort of challenge otherwise you might as well just be watching a movie.

I don't think the decrease in difficulty has anything to do with consumer demand. It simply evolution. Gaming has evolved.
 
Way back when; games were difficult because they were viewed as simple diversions. Arcade games. The faster they could kill you, the faster you'd put in another quarter. That was it. They didn't need a story and they certainly didn't need an ending, cause you weren't expected to ever reach it.
 
That shit is gone. Thus, the difficulty is gone. Games aren't about draining quarters anymore. Developers have a lot more freedom, so they're doing more stuff. That's all.
 
EDIT: Oh and yes, that difficulty came home too where there weren't any quarters because that arcade mentality was difficult to shake. There are still games today that have arcade modes.
 
Anyways, you can still get plenty of difficult games. There are a ton of people clinging to the old days.

I think one thing that many people, particularly the ones who say they just jump on easy, are confusing is what is hard for the sake of  gameplay  (like Demon's Souls, Monster Hunter, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden and a select few harder difficulties that change the experience like Crysis on Delta) where the experience is supposed to be a more rewarding: you feel awesome for eventually figuring out how to do it, and it gives off a "badass-ness" to the game as a whole compared to, say, a hard where there is no real reward: you just die...a lot... while in a unreasonable situation.  
Either way, hard games will continue to be made. These games sell surprisingly well for what some might consider a niche market.

I love hard games. I actually don't want an "experience" at all, I want a game.
 
And tons of other people do aswell. just look at the popularity of competitive online gaming.

" I almost always play on easiest mode. It's not because I can't play on a harder difficulty, it's because I don't find it fun.  Like Persona 4. I could probably play that on Normal or Hard, but I choose to play it on Beginner (even on my NG+). Why? Because I play the game for the story and social interaction, not for the dungeon crawling.  However, some games I will play on harder difficulties, but that's a fair few.  For me, harder doesn't mean funner. The harder a game is, the less fun I have, actually. "

"I think one thing that many people, particularly the ones who say they just jump on easy, are confusing is what is hard for the sake of  gameplay  (like Demon's Souls, Monster Hunter, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden and a select few harder difficulties that change the experience like Crysis on Delta) where the experience is supposed to be a more rewarding: you feel awesome for eventually figuring out how to do it, and it gives off a "badass-ness" to the game as a whole compared to, say, a hard where there is no real reward: you just die...a lot... while in a unreasonable situation.  Either way, hard games will continue to be made. These games sell surprisingly well for what some might consider a niche market. "

I thought the Fire Emblem games were hard as hell-not frustrating, just hard. Its that kind of difficulty which I enjoy. If you do something stupid within a game, that game has every right to punish you with little leeway. Thats exactly what Fire Emblem did-in such a way that you would regret that for the rest of the game (unless it was a thief, in which, case, FUCK YOU)
 
In fact, for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. IM SORRY HAWKEYE!

You give too much credit to Demon's Souls, it's by far not the only recent game to be so hard, but hard games are definitelly not the norm as they used to be. They aren't extinct, but they aren't the rule anymore, and don't appeal to very many people compared to the next Hollywood-esque blockbuster. The DS has plenty of tough Dungeon Crawlers of its own as difficulty tends to come with the genre for example, Konami's Rebirth series brings us classic hard-as-nails gameplay from beloved franchises like Contra, (pre-SotN) Castlevania and Gradius, CAPCOM's Monster Hunter is a prime example given it's also popular at least in one part of the world, and, well, making a list is redudant because there are still quite a few games of different genres of different publishers and developers that are pretty damn hard, they just don't tend to be very popular (again, Monster Hunter seems to be the exception), but the companies who make them have found a profitable niche so they aren't going extinct. If a revival was indicated, which I maintain it isn't as such games never went anywhere, it would probably be Mega Man 9's doing. That's HARD.

Edit: I also don't see the relation between the title (difficult games changing) and your write up or the linked article I just glanced over. How are they "changing" if the hard games are old school experiences like Mega Man 9 and other such downloadable titles, and basically remain in traditionally hardcore genres like dungeon crawlers, action platformers and such? It seems that, perhaps against all odds, they're staying the same. In any case, if one's not been playing hard games, it's because they don't appeal to him enough to look for them, rather than because they were going extinct or anything like that before Demon's Souls or whatever game came to their rescue. They never went anywhere, go play them.

This issue is too vague to discuss without more definition. Difficult can mean so many things to different people. Imagine someone who's only played Donkey Kong (a game I find difficult) picking up Prince of Persia (a game I find easy). I imagine that person would feel very quickly that PoP is too difficult, and that I suck at Donkey Kong. 
 
Building a rewarding challenge is so fundamental to game design, but it seems the hardest thing to do well enough to stand out in a positive light among other games. There aren't many games I can think of that were perfectly tuned to my challenge wheelhouse. But when it happens it's an experience unto itself. 
 
My point: A game that's fun to fail at is rare indeed. But difficulty is everywhere.

Adjective

funner

1. ( humorous , nonstandard ) Comparative form of fun: more fun.

Usage notes

Funner is a regular comparative of the adjective fun. However, the use of fun as an adjective is itself still often seen as informal or casual and to be avoided in formal writing, and this would apply equally to the comparative form. Merriam-Webster, however, gives fun as an adjective without comment, and states that funner and funnest are ‘sometimes’ used. Because of the remaining stigma, more fun may be preferred in formal writing

I can't believe there is this thread again. Didn't someone already post this?  Anyways, the whole point is that games are not to be TOO hard or TOO easy. It's the goldilocks zone.  Every game strives to get there.  Then after they find the middle area, they use what they call a DIFFICULTY SETTING so you can choose to make it easier or harder based on what they consider is "normal" play.  For fucking Demon's Souls, they just cranked the difficulty up to 11, broke the knob on it, & said "This is the game! Enjoy it you self-loathers/suckas!"
 
Not sure anyone mentioned it, but the entire reason older games were hard is because they were designed to suck up your quarters at the arcade. Once you moved the game systems into the homes, then it was about quality.  I recall that beating a game on an Atari 2600 was 100x easier than beating the same game in an arcade.  They made the games easier/shorter to get you to buy MORE games to play at home.  It was a nice racket back then.
 
Most games these days go in one of three directions:
1.)  Goldilocks zones with 100 hours of play & somewhat challenging, but not daunting.  (Fallout 3, COD 4, Batman AA)
2.)  Short, somewhat easy & disposable, or repetitive game.  (Brutal Legend, Dead Space)
3.)  Taxing, unforgiving, repetitive game...done on purpose. (Too Human, Demon's Souls)
 
The best sellers are usually number 1 above & sell over a longer period of time. Number 2 games sell big at first but then taper off really quick as there isn't much left to do when you're done with it after a few hours of play.  The last kind of game can last a long time by repetition but has you yelling at your TV set.  It might sell a bit on release, but then it tapers off after people get disgusted with it.
 
I'd have to say in terms of profit, the best kind of game falls in the number 1 section.  It can get more money than just a quick burst on its release date.

"I can't believe there is this thread again. Didn't someone already post this?  Anyways, the whole point is that games are not to be TOO hard or TOO easy. It's the goldilocks zone.  Every game strives to get there.  Then after they find the middle area, they use what they call a DIFFICULTY SETTING so you can choose to make it easier or harder based on what they consider is "normal" play.  For fucking Demon's Souls, they just cranked the difficulty up to 11, broke the knob on it, & said "This is the game! Enjoy it you self-loathers/suckas!" Not sure anyone mentioned it, but the entire reason older games were hard is because they were designed to suck up your quarters at the arcade. Once you moved the game systems into the homes, then it was about quality.  I recall that beating a game on an Atari 2600 was 100x easier than beating the same game in an arcade.  They made the games easier/shorter to get you to buy MORE games to play at home.  It was a nice racket back then.  Most games these days go in one of three directions: 1.)  Goldilocks zones with 100 hours of play & somewhat challenging, but not daunting.  (Fallout 3, COD 4, Batman AA)2.)  Short, somewhat easy & disposable, or repetitive game.  (Brutal Legend, Dead Space)3.)  Taxing, unforgiving, repetitive game...done on purpose. (Too Human, Demon's Souls) The best sellers are usually number 1 above & sell over a longer period of time. Number 2 games sell big at first but then taper off really quick as there isn't much left to do when you're done with it after a few hours of play.  The last kind of game can last a long time by repetition but has you yelling at your TV set.  It might sell a bit on release, but then it tapers off after people get disgusted with it.  I'd have to say in terms of profit, the best kind of game falls in the number 1 section.  It can get more money than just a quick burst on its release date. "

There's two very different versions of difficulty, there's 'Whoops I messed up', and there's 'This is total BS', Demon's Souls being the former. 
 
People generally prefer that kind, where sure they die a lot, but they learn something everytime. The game punishes them, but makes them want to continue to 'prove' it wrong, I can't tell you how happy I am in Demon's Souls when I kill 3 Red Eyed Knights. The latter, tends to sway people away from games, for the most part. These are ones where you didn't learn anything, you just have to hope the AI messes up or something because otherwise you're going to get destroyed every time, like Uncharted on crushing, for example. 
 
Demon's Souls, and a few other games make it so, sure you die but the next time you encounter that area? You're probably going to beat it, even if the walk back is long. The other games? They drop you right at that spot, but you're going to get killed about 15 times before you finally beat it.