Prince of Persia is one of the seminal classics in videogame history. Designed by Jordan Mechner and released in 1989, this beautiful platformer became instantly known for its unforgiving difficulty. Death was swift and constant during the entire game and nearly everything was lethal to our prince. It was undoubtedly one of the most frustrating games I played as a kid along with Faxanadu. Yet despite this frustration, Prince of Persia remained a compelling game to play. And there were few joys greater in the gaming world when you finally did succeed in jumping over that trap floor, making the leap of faith to the other side, defeating the enemy swordsman, and rescuing the princess.
Now nearly two decades later, Ubi Soft has returned with Prince of Persia, the 2008 edition. The second rebirth of the franchise (the first being the lauded Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and the less–lauded two sequels), this new edition of Prince of Persia is envisioned as a return to the roots of the franchise. An emphasis on platforming, limited combat, and beautiful environments were suppose to herald the return of the franchise to greatness again. And at an initial glance, they seemed to have succeeded admirably at this. Certainly the beautiful painterly cel–shading creates these wonderful environments. The presentation is nearly perfect for Prince of Persia.
Too bad it seems like forgot to include the challenge in the game. By various accounts, Prince of Persia 2008 is designed to be frustration–free. There’s nearly no punishment for death in the game, the titular prince is he missteps and falls in combat is saved by his new traveling companion Elika. Even more concerning is how Prince of Persia, which once prided itself on its exploration of environments, has now seemingly become a linear game. There only seems to be one correct way to traverse levels and as the GameTrailers review noted at times it feels less like a game and more like an extended quicktime event.
Challenge is becoming a rare beast in games. Not in all games mind you, you can name a dozen recently released games that have a fair bit of difficulty. Challenge has become rare in mainstream games. The big blockbuster titles that cost millions and are expected to earn millions for the publishers. It wasn’t very long ago that these games had no problem punishing players for failure, forcing them to retry sections until that player could navigate with a high amount of precision and skill.
But now its too risky to challenge players. Games (as noted repeatedly) are more and more expensive for publishers to make. And these expensive games can’t risk frustrating less skilled players that might not be capable or willing to fight through difficulty to get to the end of the game. Far better to err on the side of being too easy rather than being too hard. So in games like Prince of Persia getting through the game is unlikely to be a problem.
But the removal of challenge as Chris Kohler in his review noted also removed many of the highs associated with games. Games — if they’re good at anything — are at their best when they deliver the adrenaline and satisfaction of an obstacle overcome in a meaningful way. Yes, by reducing difficulty and removing conquences we reduce the frustration and repetition that might deter some players. But at the same time we remove a lot of the joy from a job well done (or a game well played). How can you feel good at being an awesome player if the game is designed to make everyone awesome?
This is not an easy question to answer. But I do know that reducing risk and challenge can’t be the right one. To me, that’s like being a chef afraid that someone might dislike the food you’re cooking. If you remove the flavor you don’t end up offending anyone. But in the end, all you have is a bland meal.
Leave a Reply