While developing a Vib-Ribbon-inspired rhythm game with my team, I notice something interesting: some players struggled with the difficulty, while others enjoyed the challenge and competing for high scores. This made me think about how game art, visual feedback and level design can affect how players experience a challenge.
Is our game too hard?
We have been developing a rhythm game inspired by Vib-Ribbon: players need to react to different obstacles by pressing the correct keyboard inputs while following the rhythm of the music. Pretty simple, right? Well, not really.
Our game has five different inputs, a mechanic for switching between two lanes, power-ups, a fuel system that punishes mistakes and obstacles that require pretty accurate timing.
After getting the Hard level playable from beginning to end, we started testing it with other players. And that's when things got interesting.
Some players struggled with the number of inputs or/and the timing, while others really enjoyed the challenge and even started competing for the highest score.
This made me wonder: Is our game too difficult or are we expecting players to learn too much at once?
I started thinking more about how players learn game mechanics and whether there were ways to improve their experience without removing what makes the game challenging.
How Game Art affects difficulty?
During our team discussions, we mentioned that one of the suggestions that we received during the playtest were to remove inputs or obstacles. Other suggestions was to use different colors or shapes to make obstacle easier to recognize.
This got me thinking about how much visual design can affect gameplay.
In our game, each obstacle has a different shape that players need to recognize quickly. If two shapes look too similar, or if they don't stand out enough from the background, players might press the wrong key even when they understand the rhythm.
So things like shape, contrast, color and visual clarity can make a difference in how difficult a game feels.
Image 02: Early test just in black and white to see how clear we could understand the obstacles and character shapes.
I think using different colors to each obstacle could be worth testing, but they shouldn't be the only way to distinguish obstacles, since not everyone perceives colors in the same way.
Another example I experienced during development was working with character animations (made by another team member, Niko Saarikoski). After adding the running, jumping and stumbling animations, I had to pay attention to how they matched the hit detection system. If the animation doesn't match what the game registers, players might feel that they pressed the correct key but were punished anyway. Also, if the animations are too similar, the feeling of rewarding may not be so satisfying as the player would expect.
The game also uses Perfect, Good, Too Early, Too Late and Miss feedback to communicate how accurately players react to obstacles.
These details made me realize that Game Art isn't just about making a game look nice. It also helps players to understand what's happening and how to react. And this is especially important in a rhythm game, where players have very little time to process visual information.
Difficulty vs. Frustration
While researching difficulty in games, I came across GameFlow by Weetser and Wyeth (2005), which discusses how different things can affect how much players enjoy a game, including challenge, player skills, goals, control and feedback.
One of the ideas that caught my attention was that the challenge should match the player's skills. This made a lot of sense when I thought about our playtest.
Someone who already plays rhythm games (or have some other experience dealing with rhythm, like musicians) might learn our controls fairly quickly, but someone who doesn't have much experience with these games might struggle just to remember the controls.
Both players were playing the same level, but they aren't necessarily having the same experience. There's an important difference between missing an obstacle because the rhythm is challenging and missing it because the visual information is confusing.
For example, if a player understands which key to press but misses the timing, they know what to practice. But if they can't recognize the obstacle or understand why they failed, repeating the level might just became frustrating.
Making an obstacle easier to recognize doesn't necessarily make it easier to execute.
Players still need to press the correct input at the correct time. For me, that's an important difference when deciding whether a mechanic actually needs to be simplified.
What if I teach before I challenge?
Instead of immediately removing mechanics from Hard level, I suggested we keep the original plan and create Easy and Medium levels to help players learn gradually.
This matches a concept that I came across while researching about learning curves: SCAFFOLDING, an approach where learners receive support when learning something new and that support is gradually reduced as they improve.
I think this concept fits our game really well. Rather than expecting players to understand all five inputs, lane switching and rhythmic patterns immediately, we should introduce the mechanics little by little.
I also read a study by Cao and Liu (2022) about in-game tutorials. This research discusses things such practice, feedback and how previous experience can affect the way players learn. This is relevant to our game because knowing which key to press isn't enough. Players also need to learn when to press it. So instead of showing a long list of instructions before the game starts, it would be nice to introduce the controls through simple obstacle patterns that players can practice while listening to the music.
My idea for the difficulty progression is:
EASY LEVEL = Learning the controls: This level would work almost like a tutorial, introducing obstacle shapes and inputs gradually, with simple patterns, visual guidance and less punishment for mistakes. I am even considering disabling Game Over, so players can finish the song even if they miss several obstacles, giving them time to understand the mechanics without constantly having to restart.
MEDIUM LEVEL = Practicing the rhythm: This level would introduce more combinations with familiar obstacles, introduce more complex sequences and slowly reduce the amount of guidance. The idea is to help players feel more comfortable before moving on to the Hard level.
HARD LEVEL = Putting everything together: For this, I would keep the existing challenging level, with complex obstacle combinations, more demanding timing and stronger penalties for mistakes, but instead of being the first experience for a new player, it would be something they could work towards.
We've also been exploring different songs for each level, considering how their rhythms and repeated patterns could help introduce the mechanics more naturally and help players to learn.
These improvements are still being developed, so I haven't tested whether this approach will solve the problems yet. But I think it's worth exploring before removing mechanics that some players already enjoy.
This progression follows the idea of Scaffolding: players first receive more support and simpler tasks and then that support is gradually reduced as they become more confident and skilled
What I'm taking from this experience?
Working on this project as Level Designer has made me realize how closely Game Art and Level Design are connected.
At first, I was mainly focused on creating interesting obstacle patterns that matched the music, but after watching people play, I started paying more attention to how they recognize obstacles, understand animations and react to visual feedback.
I also realized that when someone says a game is too difficult, I shouldn't immediately assume that the mechanics need to be simplified.
Maybe the timing needs adjustment. Maybe the obstacles aren't clear enough. Or maybe the player just needs more opportunities to practice before facing more complicated sequences.
Of course that doesn't mean every difficult mechanic should stay in the game. Sometimes removing or changing something is the right decision. I just think it's important to understand the problem before choosing a solution.
There's still a lot I want to test and improve, especially when the Easy and Medium levels are ready.
For now, one thing I'll keep in mind when designing future levels is that a difficult game should challenge the player's skills, not their ability to understand what's happening on the screen.
Maybe our game doesn't need to be easier. Maybe we just need to provide a better way for the players to learn it.
Want to try it?
You can try our current Hard-level prototype on itch.io and see what you think about its difficulty!
Did you find the game challenging or frustrating? Would you prefer fewer inputs, clearer visual cues or an easier level to practice first?
References:
Cao, S., & Liu, F. 2022. Learning to Play: Understanding In-Game Tutorials with a Pilot Study on Implicit Tutorials.
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. 2005. GameFlow: A model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. 1976. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.