Is difficulty overrated?

Abstract

Many game designers aim to optimize difficulty to make games that are "not too hard, not too easy." However, recent experiments have shown that even moderate difficulty can reduce player engagement. The present work investigates other design factors that may account for the purported benefits of difficulty, such as choice, novelty and suspense. These factors were manipulated in three design experiments involving over 20,000 play sessions of an online educational game. The first experiment (n=10,472) randomly assigned some players to a particular level of difficulty but allowed other players to freely choose their difficulty. Moderately difficult levels were most motivating when self-selected; yet, when difficulty was blindly assigned, the easiest games were most motivating. The second experiment (n=5,065) randomly assigned players to differing degrees of novelty. Moderate novelty was optimal, while too much or too little novelty reduced intrinsic motivation. A final experiment (n=6,511) investigated the role of suspense in "close games", where it was found to be beneficial. If difficulty decreases motivation while novelty and suspense increase it, then an implication for educational game designers is to make easy, interesting games that are "not too hard, not too boring".