Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT
 

Would an easy mode work in the monster hunter series?

FriedRicer:
The one-size does fit all.

Then why are people complaining that one size fits all is cutting off their circulation? Are they just delusional?

The entire games is filled with opportunities to make itself easier.The more you learn the mechanics and are patient,the easier it becomes.This game has one of the most flexible difficulties I have experienced.Name any boss,and I can tell you the "easy mode".

Learning the mechanics leading to making the game essentially easier is not unique to Dark Souls. Most games do this, hence why they have to put in more and more complex tasks the closer to the end the player gets to avoid the game becoming a roflstomp.

It's frustrates alot of Soul's players to hear about a mode that makes the entire games mechanics redundant.

Why would you use those redundancies?

LetalisK:

FriedRicer:
The one-size does fit all.

Then why are people complaining that one size fits all is cutting off their circulation? Are they just delusional?

The entire games is filled with opportunities to make itself easier.The more you learn the mechanics and are patient,the easier it becomes.This game has one of the most flexible difficulties I have experienced.Name any boss,and I can tell you the "easy mode".

Learning the mechanics leading to making the game essentially easier is not unique to Dark Souls. Most games do this, hence why they have to put in more and more complex tasks the closer to the end the player gets to avoid the game becoming a roflstomp.

It's frustrates alot of Soul's players to hear about a mode that makes the entire games mechanics redundant.

Why would you use those redundancies?

They don't what the current model of accessibility to change.It's brilliant and the old methods(diff modes) would ruin the series originality-something that attracted many of its original fans.

Most games do not do it in the same way Dark Souls does.That's why they have to put in more complex tasks.DS,on the other hand,asks for a test based off of information that was given to you the moment you turned on the game and pressed the "explanation" button.Practically any problem can be solved after that.

I wouldn't be affected those redundancies....the budget would!*bad-um-TISH*

Corny joke aside,there are many reasons why DS has one difficulty. Artistic intent is one the more important ones.But elitism always gets brought up and,you know what?Why is elitism bad?Or this particular brand of it that is broken when one acts patiently and reads?Traits that are inherent in everyone unlike reflexes?The game was quoted by the director to be able to be beaten with minimal reflexes and previous game knowledge.There are mechanics that are divided to give beginners an easy time(poise,bonfire,summons)and veterans a more difficult experience(burden,parry,invasions).
Pointless Rant:
And it is all seamless and canon to the lore.You know,the one that says that there are multiple people doing what your doing?And that some will fail?And that's the whole reason you can hear the bells other players ring?So everyone is in one group?Despite their skill level in other games?Whether they beat the gargoyles naked or picked up the claymore and realized it stunlocked them?Or summoned NPC's?Ending paragraph with sentence in condescending-question tone?

TL;DR:
If you don't want to die(fail),don't play a game that tells you that you will die(fail).There are plenty of other options if you want to feel success.No need to ruin others fun(however elitist you mistake it to be).Stop being selfish.Wait a sec...

FriedRicer:

Corny joke aside,there are many reasons why DS has one difficulty. Artistic intent is one the more important ones.But elitism always gets brought up and,you know what?Why is elitism bad?

Because it leads to entitled behavior about the developer's artistic intent. I refer back to my original post in this thread where I gave a general "Tough Shit" to both sides. It's the developer's choice whether or not to include a difficulty option. If anyone takes issue with their artistic intent, well, that's a personal problem.

Ultimately, it's the developers choice. If they don't want to introduce easy mode, tough shit for lesser skilled players, they're not entitled to that gaming experience. On the flip side of that coin, if they were to introduce an easy mode, tough shit for the original players, they're not entitled to exclude people from the game just because of misplaced fears of changes that are ultimately not going to affect them besides having to deal with the occasional poser who thinks simply because he beat Dark Souls on a lower difficulty that he's a gaming badass.

LetalisK:

FriedRicer:

Corny joke aside,there are many reasons why DS has one difficulty. Artistic intent is one the more important ones.But elitism always gets brought up and,you know what?Why is elitism bad?

Because it leads to entitled behavior about the developer's artistic intent. I refer back to my original post in this thread where I gave a general "Tough Shit" to both sides. It's the developer's choice whether or not to include a difficulty option. If anyone takes issue with their artistic intent, well, that's a personal problem.

Ultimately, it's the developers choice. If they don't want to introduce easy mode, tough shit for lesser skilled players, they're not entitled to that gaming experience. On the flip side of that coin, if they were to introduce an easy mode, tough shit for the original players, they're not entitled to exclude people from the game just because of misplaced fears of changes that are ultimately not going to affect them besides having to deal with the occasional poser who thinks simply because he beat Dark Souls on a lower difficulty that he's a gaming badass.

I understand what your saying.But then if modes were implemented we would have an entirely different experience based on my reasons and the reasons of other posters.It is "tough shit",but then we could say that about any problem and leave them at that.But your right nonetheless.At least you didn't say something asinine like "First World Problems".At best that meme is incredibly obvious.

BilltheEmu:
snip for lengthy posting

I think we may have had a misunderstanding. I don't think they "need" to change it. I am simply stating that you will see a steady increase in sales as games release popular sequels. The souls series included, as you said it has gone from half a million copies for Demon's Souls to almost 12million for Dark Souls. What changed was accessibility. That time it was in the form of allowing their game to be accessed by other platforms. As From will want to increase their profit they will work to do two things, retain previous players, and gain new players. This means keeping core mechanics in tact, while making concessions to gain a new audience. I don't think this is a good thing at all personally. I actually hope they do not change their stance on the core difficulty. I would much rather them include multiple settings to appease the masses, however if they can't implement easy/hardcore modes without killing the core gameplay, I would rather they not touch it at all. I realize it is a delicate balance, and I like the game the way it is. It is selfish of me to want the game to exclude potential sales just to appease me though. It is also folly to think that it is impossible to add an easy mode without ruining the game. It is just important that they include the easy mode in such a way as to not ruin the game itself.

In short I do think it is entirely possible to have your cake and eat it too (what a silly saying) in this situation. I know there will be core fans who moan and groan about it, but they are the minority (from my experience, I don't have any statistics to back that up [but I'd be quite happy to make some up for you]). The important thing is for them to ensure that easy mode isn't the same thing as casual or walk in the park mode. The game should still be hard, but allow for more mistakes to be made without the ultimate punishment. For that matter, making a much better tutorial would go miles towards appeasing the masses IMO.

I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

infinity_turtles:

VampLena:
Let me spell it out for some people, like that idiot Cliffy B, alot of people play games for FUN, its why cheating has been common as long as games exist like with Game Genie to now with game trainers, alot of people do not care if there is no risk of loosing, just because a hardcore player wants that risk does not mean all people are created equally.

I find challenge FUN. Just because you don't want a constant risk that forces you to adapt to it instead of the other way around does not mean all people are created equal. There's loads of games that play the way you like, let me have the ridiculously few that play the way I like. Stop trying to take my fun when you already have yours.

And? No one has said you cant have your fun, its the hardcore twits that go around saying easy modes shouldnt exist and casual players are 'dirty' and ruining gaming. Fortunately though companies know hardcore gamers aren't where the money is.

VampLena:

And? No one has said you cant have your fun, its the hardcore twits that go around saying easy modes shouldnt exist and casual players are 'dirty' and ruining gaming. Fortunately though companies know hardcore gamers aren't where the money is.

Ah, sorry about that then. Guess I got caught up in the general attitude of the thread being "If you don't want every game to have an easy mode then you're an elitist prick." Haven't seen anyone saying no games should have an easy mode, just not all games should. Heard plenty of times that every game should though. Sorry for getting defensive.

grumbel:

Could you cite some? All I see is a bunch of boys that feel threatened in their manhood when somebody plays their games on easy.

And what I see is mostly people who feel threatened by others enjoying something they lack the ability to access, even though it's not made for thenm.

grumbel:

Your definition of gaming is rooted in some 20 year old arcade coin up machines. Games have long moved on and expanded into other areas.

This boggles me.. Games are designed around doing very specific things. Some games serve as a vessel for story, such as the walking dead. Some games are focused around puzzles, such as Braid. Is it really that unimaginable that one of the games in the world has caution and trial-and-error as a core function?

chikusho:
And what I see is mostly people who feel threatened by others enjoying something they lack the ability to access, even though it's not made for thenm.

Nobody feels threatened by the lack of easy-mode, as those people that want one will simply not buy the game. The problem however is that lack of easy-mode leads to lack of sales and lack of sales leads to the introduction about easy-mode in one form or another. The easy-mode isn't being talked about because Dark Souls players want it, but because the developer sees a potential for a wider audience by making the game more accessible.

Also why so much complaining about easy-mode? Why is nobody complaining about NewGame+? Why is it ok to change difficulty in one direction, but not into the other? What would be wrong with having a NewGame-?

Is it really that unimaginable that one of the games in the world has caution and trial-and-error as a core function?

Nothing wrong with caution, even trial-and-error is ok. Fighting the same enemies that you have already beaten over and over again is however a fault in game design and not really tolerable when a game is meant to attract a wider audience.

grumbel:

Is it really that unimaginable that one of the games in the world has caution and trial-and-error as a core function?

Nothing wrong with caution, even trial-and-error is ok. Fighting the same enemies that you have already beaten over and over again is however a fault in game design and not really tolerable when a game is meant to attract a wider audience.

Thats been an old standard in RPG's really. To take uber-popular casual RPG Final Fantasy, outside of the crazy hard-core, you're typically going to put in at least a few hours of grinding enemies for xp (or money, or blue magic, or something). Dark Souls just sort of automates the process by making you grind some more when you failed, and you come back to the boss stronger. Assuming you do the typical RPG thing and upgrade your gear to top notch and level up as much as possible before a boss, you typically lose next to nothing anyways.

So Jim how am I an asshole for wanting my games to maintain the same quality and fairness to all players by not wanting an easy mode, unless said easy mode is cut off from the dynamic multi-player to prevent abuse of power?

BilltheEmu:

Demon's Souls was absolutely a niche title, and it was released to a world of gamers who had long been lacking such a title. The result seems to reflect Mr. Carpenter's ideas quite well, in that Demon's Souls created its own sizable audience, which From themselves may not have expected. Dark Souls came along later, and built on that audience.

This is likely the very reason Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are so incredibly precious to those who happen to appreciate them for what they are. Demon's Souls in particular was not intentionally designed to be appreciated by anyone in particular, but if someone does happen to find it to their liking then they will likely appreciate it all the more for it. The ingenuity of actual creativity that hasn't been affected by things like popular demand almost always results in something that is seen as something truly special by those who learn to appreciate it.

Having said that, I fully stand by my opinion that the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" on the game menu would have literally zero impact on my enjoyment of the game.

Whether the suggested addition of "Easy Mode" to the game would have an impact on your or anyone elses enjoyment of Dark Souls or not is not of the issue here. It is completely besides the point I was trying to make by bringing up Edmund Snow Carpenter's work, for the reasons I will soon state.

It also just so happens that I have in fact explained on several occasions how the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" potentially could create a massive disconnect between how Dark Souls presents itself to the player and how the player experiences it.

All of us who are fans of Dark Souls have, presumably, completed the game at least once. It's been over a year since the original release, and months since PTDE, so if you're a fan, and you haven't by now, well...

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.

The point I was trying to make is that there often is some notable value in things that are considered to be significant and that preserving them as they are is the responsible thing to do. The issue here is that Dark Souls itself, which I concider to be a creative work of art, is suggested to be altered in some way. By people outside of the audience or inside of it even. There is no need for this since Dark Souls succeeded in exactly what it was set out to do and is appreciated greatly by those who do happen to enjoy it for what it is. People are demanding it to be something it never had the intention of being.

A person has spoken and what they have said has been noted by many to be significant. An audience has been created. While the person that has spoken is not practically speaking accountable to the audience that was created (even less so to people outside of it), it would be incredibly irresponsible of them to take advantage of the audience in any shape or form. This includes any and all deliberate alterations of any aspects of what they have spoken in an attempt to please some specific party. Doing so would, in a sense, make them a hypocrite.

The change in the case of Dark Souls, a video game, would work sligtly differently than in the case of spoken words, but the basic principle still remains the same: if going by the rules Edmund Snow Carpenter has set out for us in They Became What They Beheld, as artists the persons that spoke have no more right to start addressing themselves to audiencies after they have spoken than they did before they had spoken.

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.

I happen to care very much. It also matters because it is imperative that a creative work is preserved to have the composition it had when it first was published (aside for perhaps fixes). Just because I have already experienced Dark Souls doesn't mean that I should just ignore the repercussions of altering it in some way. I sincerely want any and all people, no matter where and when they live, to have the opportunity to experience any creative works as they were originally. I would also argue that a creative work that doesn't intentionally address any audiences simply doesn't have any responsibility of being made accessible to those that do not belong to any created audiences in the first place.

Steps are already being taken to preserve pieces of literature, movies and music - parts of our culture - in an attempt to make sure that their original composition is never lost. Why not video games? Should we have to admit thay they are not worth preserving in their original form? No, I think many video games are worth preserving for the future, and because of this the integrity of a creative work should in general be left intact for any future people that want to experience it as it was when it was completed.

Thus I believe that all of our concern for the Souls series should be directed toward the future, not the past.

It is just as imperative to prevent possible alterations to Dark Souls, which is an already existing title, if they were to be done for the sole reason of appealing to a wider audience or if these alterations present a very real chance of being in some way harmful to the way Dark Souls presents itself.

It has already been stated that Dark Souls II will be quite different from the previous titles where Miyazaki acted as a director. Watch ENB's latest video. Other than that I don't have much else to say about Dark Souls II. Hopefully they end up making a game they honestly want to create, not one that they think has the most selling potential.

Peithelo:

BilltheEmu:

Demon's Souls was absolutely a niche title, and it was released to a world of gamers who had long been lacking such a title. The result seems to reflect Mr. Carpenter's ideas quite well, in that Demon's Souls created its own sizable audience, which From themselves may not have expected. Dark Souls came along later, and built on that audience.

This is likely the very reason Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are so incredibly precious to those who happen to appreciate them for what they are. Demon's Souls in particular was not intentionally designed to be appreciated by anyone in particular, but if someone does happen to find it to their liking then they will likely appreciate it all the more for it. The ingenuity of actual creativity that hasn't been affected by things like popular demand almost always results in something that is seen as something truly special by those who learn to appreciate it.

Having said that, I fully stand by my opinion that the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" on the game menu would have literally zero impact on my enjoyment of the game.

Whether the suggested addition of "Easy Mode" to the game would have an impact on your or anyone elses enjoyment of Dark Souls or not is not of the issue here. It is completely besides the point I was trying to make by bringing up Edmund Snow Carpenter's work, for the reasons I will soon state.

It also just so happens that I have in fact explained on several occasions how the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" potentially could create a massive disconnect between how Dark Souls presents itself to the player and how the player experiences it.

All of us who are fans of Dark Souls have, presumably, completed the game at least once. It's been over a year since the original release, and months since PTDE, so if you're a fan, and you haven't by now, well...

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.

The point I was trying to make is that there often is some notable value in things that are considered to be significant and that preserving them as they are is the responsible thing to do. The issue here is that Dark Souls itself, which I concider to be a creative work of art, is suggested to be altered in some way. By people outside of the audience or inside of it even. There is no need for this since Dark Souls succeeded in exactly what it was set out to do and is appreciated greatly by those who do happen to enjoy it for what it is. People are demanding it to be something it never had the intention of being.

A person has spoken and what they have said has been noted by many to be significant. An audience has been created. While the person that has spoken is not practically speaking accountable to the audience that was created (even less so to people outside of it), it would be incredibly irresponsible of them to take advantage of the audience in any shape or form. This includes any and all deliberate alterations of any aspects of what they have spoken in an attempt to please some specific party. Doing so would, in a sense, make them a hypocrite.

The change in the case of Dark Souls, a video game, would work sligtly differently than in the case of spoken words, but the basic principle still remains the same: if going by the rules Edmund Snow Carpenter has set out for us in They Became What They Beheld, as artists the persons that spoke have no more right to start addressing themselves to audiencies after they have spoken than they did before they had spoken.

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.

I happen to care very much. It also matters because it is imperative that a creative work is preserved to have the composition it had when it first was published (aside for perhaps fixes). Just because I have already experienced Dark Souls doesn't mean that I should just ignore the repercussions of altering it in some way. I sincerely want any and all people, no matter where and when they live, to have the opportunity to experience any creative works as they were originally. I would also argue that a creative work that doesn't intentionally address any audiences simply doesn't have any responsibility of being made accessible to those that do not belong to any created audiences in the first place.

Steps are already being taken to preserve pieces of literature, movies and music - parts of our culture - in an attempt to make sure that their original composition is never lost. Why not video games? Should we have to admit thay they are not worth preserving in their original form? No, I think many video games are worth preserving for the future, and because of this the integrity of a creative work should in general be left intact for any future people that want to experience it as it was when it was completed.

Thus I believe that all of our concern for the Souls series should be directed toward the future, not the past.

It is just as imperative to prevent possible alterations to Dark Souls, which is an already existing title, if they were to be done for the sole reason of appealing to a wider audience or if these alterations present a very real chance of being in some way harmful to the way Dark Souls presents itself.

It has already been stated that Dark Souls II will be quite different from the previous titles where Miyazaki acted as a director. Watch ENB's latest video. Other than that I don't have much else to say about Dark Souls II. Hopefully they end up making a game they honestly want to create, not one that they think has the most selling potential.

EpicNameBro is amazing and more people should watch his vids.

OT?(It kinda got derailed):
I saw the latest video.Yup, they killed it.(so far it seems)
Mechanics restricted at the games beginning?check
One main character?check
New director by order of publisher?Check

A game that gets easier the more you read and the more patient you are-one made with reflexes as an afterthought....cannot be beaten.And needs its flexible difficulty to be roped off in to a separate mode?
I get the publishers perspective,but I can't see how people don't have the above traits,or why they would get a game if they somehow did not posses them.The game was built with an uncompromising difficulty that YOU had to change.Everyone suffers the same experience(directors intent).It has already been made with a wide scope.

I wonder what boss keeps killing people?
Or what thing they keep trying that fails?
I am about to play Persona for the first time ever....random?

"Watch Shows Not commercials"
"The Hopper From DISH"
-A commercial from dish.

evilneko:
I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

Okay, I've been inspired and gone back ot teh game, and finished it now.

It may need a better tutorial, particularly in terms of upgrading gear. It doesn't need an easy mode. The third act particularly with upgrades is basically a downhill sprint.

immortalfrieza:

evilneko:
I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

Not sure if serious...or just elitist.

immortalfrieza:
Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

You now what is holding back video games as an art form? That kind of elitist bullshit attitude. I mean what's next? Sending DMCA takedown letters to all those tutorials on Youtube? After all real men don't need a walkthrough, progress has to be earned all by yourself! Everything else just spoils the artistic integrity...

Luckily game developers largely ignore those request and develop the medium forward instead of holding onto coin-up logic forever (rather slowly, but it's getting there). Alone in the Dark let you skip chapters, Forza gives you a rewind button and Nintendo has it's Super Guide. Those are all good ways into the right direction, not always perfect of course, but at least they give it a shot.

And as already been said a few times: Lack of accessibility is what is causing developers/publishers to dumb games down in the long run. A well done easy-mode on the other side would allow you to preserve the game as is, while at the same time offering accessibility. So I really don't get why everybody is arguing against it. Publishers aren't just going to ignore potential sales from regular gamers because a bunch of gamers want their hardcore-only games.

evilneko:

immortalfrieza:

evilneko:
I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

Not sure if serious...or just elitist.

I still can't find a problem with elitism but...

There was nothing elitist in his post.It was anti-entitlement.I still can't find a problem with that either.
(feeling entitled)

If you don't think you have to earn content in a game based on some measure of skill "example:win to progress" why even try an input-converts-to-content system of entertainment?Because at some point,the cost(input) might be out of your reach.That is the risk one takes in this medium.And it is okay for that.Niche can create distinct experiences for those who like that particular thing.Even if that thing happens to be some dreaded elitism.

How in the fuck did this discussion has 28 pages? How the fuck does anyone's brain reach the conclusion that optional addition = ruins entire game. Really, what the fuck?

You clearly haven't played Dark Souls.

If you added an easy mode you would need to change the design of the game because the game revolves around paying attention and learning from your previous mistakes, the difficultly is Dark Souls core function and removing it would ruin the game.

Changing a couple of stats won't really change much considering there are a lot of environment based death traps which you would need to remove, this would ruin it for those who want to have a challenging experience.

The story in Dark Souls is also very hard to figure out and not shoved in your face at all which a hell of a lot of souls players enjoy because of the fact that they get rewarded with lore for actually digging deep into the story, if you were to try to appeal to the casuals you would have to be more direct with the story which would again ruin it for the core gamers.

TL;DR version: Dark Souls revolves around being hard, take that difficulty away and you're killing the game.

immortalfrieza:

evilneko:
I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

/end thread.....

Cheer for yet another SELLOUT franchise turned to shit for the filthy lazy casual consumer. Hurah for accessibility!

Akratus:
How in the fuck did this discussion has 28 pages? How the fuck does anyone's brain reach the conclusion that optional addition = ruins entire game. Really, what the fuck?

Look around you, and you will see... There are many people's brains who make that connection. :D

Akratus:
How in the fuck did this discussion has 28 pages? How the fuck does anyone's brain reach the conclusion that optional addition = ruins entire game. Really, what the fuck?

*facepalm*

When you don't read any of the arguments and think you know whats best for everyone, it can seem like that.

Nazulu:

Akratus:
How in the fuck did this discussion has 28 pages? How the fuck does anyone's brain reach the conclusion that optional addition = ruins entire game. Really, what the fuck?

*facepalm*

When you don't read any of the arguments and think you know whats best for everyone, it can seem like that.

But he wouldn't want to read the thread that would be too much work.

JustanotherGamer:

Nazulu:

Akratus:
How in the fuck did this discussion has 28 pages? How the fuck does anyone's brain reach the conclusion that optional addition = ruins entire game. Really, what the fuck?

*facepalm*

When you don't read any of the arguments and think you know whats best for everyone, it can seem like that.

But he wouldn't want to read the thread that would be too much work.

Oh yes very compelling, those. "It's like a disease on my game and I want to live an fantasy fairyland of hardcore difficulty waaah!"

Jimothy Sterling:
Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

There are valid concerns with the "dumbing down" of our entertainment, but as with so many issues, there are just as many invalid ones. This is especially true when "inclusiveness" and "dumbing down" are seen as the same thing.

Watch Video

As usual, those trying to argue that games aren't being "dumbed down" resort to massive hyperbolic strawmen. People still accuse me of using a slippery-slope argument, despite the fact that we are at least half way down the fucking slide and still accelerating; "streamlining" games to make them "more accessible" is a nice way of saying the developer will be removing features compared to previous games in the series or other titles in the genre. Once in a while, they will remove something which was genuinely just a bad game mechanic, but most of the time they're just taking away options from people who want them in order to cater to people who just want a stage-managed themepark ride.

And you know what? That wouldn't even be a problem, except that those people become the ONLY ones who's tastes are catered to, because game design has ceased to be a craft practiced by genuine enthusiasts, and has become a fully-commercial industry in which profitability is not merely one albeit important concern, but the ONLY concern, and from that perspective, why would you make an engrossing, carefully-crafted, challenging "niche" product when you can churn out vacant shovelware and make as much if not much, MUCH more money catering to the "my console plays things other than FIFA!?" crowd?

The hilarious thing is, not five years ago PC gamers were getting called "elitist" and worse, for complaining that PC games were losing features and graphical fidelity in order to cater to console hardware and console gamer sensibilities, and now those same people who were so quick to judge are shocked and surprised to find THEIR tastes are being disregarded in order to satisfy the even larger group of people who think "gamers" are hilarious basement-dwelling losers, but will happily ponce about their living room flailing about like a moron in front of their TV.

Akratus:

JustanotherGamer:

Nazulu:

*facepalm*

When you don't read any of the arguments and think you know whats best for everyone, it can seem like that.

But he wouldn't want to read the thread that would be too much work.

Oh yes very compelling, those. "It's like a disease on my game and I want to live an fantasy fairyland of hardcore difficulty waaah!"

I stand corrected you don't have any reading comprehension....

Mmo's are turning to shit because of the lets dumb it down and make em for those who don't like them. http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/16/casual-content-accounts-for-small-part-of-revenue/

check out the comments i see a similar argument. I can't wait for an easy monsterhunter where i just have every armor and weapon without ever doing anything, because it's wrong to need to play a game to access the content right?

Akratus:

JustanotherGamer:

Nazulu:

*facepalm*

When you don't read any of the arguments and think you know whats best for everyone, it can seem like that.

But he wouldn't want to read the thread that would be too much work.

Oh yes very compelling, those. "It's like a disease on my game and I want to live an fantasy fairyland of hardcore difficulty waaah!"

You can either debate against all these 28 pages of points, counterpoints, arguments, and counterarguments, to DEMONSTRATE how they are al wrong, OR you can flaunt your own ignorance that you didn't read them, but you can't have both.

I'm really beginning to think people seem to forget (and take for granted) that not everyone on the planet has 20+ years of gaming experience!

Just for fun, give your non-gaming parent or whatever a shot at a FPS, and see just how much of our gaming skills we take for granted.

Ranorak:
I'm really beginning to think people seem to forget (and take for granted) that not everyone on the planet has 20+ years of gaming experience!

Just for fun, give your non-gaming parent or whatever a shot at a FPS, and see just how much of our gaming skills we take for granted.

Maybe some people should understand not everything in the commercial market is made for them. Not everything in the world is likeable by every one. There are many many games i don't like but do i cry that i have no access based off of my tastes no. why do you?

JustanotherGamer:
Maybe some people should understand not everything in the commercial market is made for them.

Yeah, and then not enough people end up buying the game and those type games disappear from the market place. Problem solved... Why is it so hard to understand that not buying those games does not solve the problem? That's the very reason why games have been streamlined so much over the last decade. If you want to keep complex games around you have to find a way to keep them accessible without removing the complexity.

They dissolve when watered down and become a different game. Dark souls 2 will be a sellout so the fktards can get their candy and the original fans don't like it or buy it but the sheeples buy it and people make more money.

My point is changing the game is removing it from the market anyway. I'd rather think that even niche titles have a space on all platforms but thats elitist and i'm a cunt for liking something others feel to scared to try incase it leaves their ego in tatters. Roll on interactive movies and no content barriers. Wow what an awesome game monster hunter 6 will be when you start with all the weapons and armor, don't need to kill any monsters just walk round the map a stare at the scenery. Wow your games sound so fun.

maybe they should take the aiming out of fps's and the goalkeepers out of fiffa, Or how about taking all the puzzles out of myst the content would be more accessible so that's the way to go right?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here