Can someone explain this weird Jimquisition video about difficult games to me?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 15 NEXT
 

Kerg3927:
Are you a programmer? Have you ever worked in the video game development industry? I'm not necessarily doubting what you're saying, just curious about your credentials.

I would argue that none of that is very relevant. It certainly does divert resources, attention, and focus away from the primary target audience to create a game that caters to everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but at the end of the day, a game entirely focused on a specific type of gamer is more likely to result in a better game for that specific type of gamer. And developers are absolutely under no obligation to cater to everyone if they don't want to.

I've taken a handful of programming classes in my college days, I understand the core logic and how you have think about how you're going to structure the program before you even start coding. Before you start coding, you have to think about how it's going to be structured and stuff you know will probably have to altered has to be both easy to alter and easy to find. Especially in such a big project like a game, you are not the only one coding the game so if someone else needs to use say your subroutine for what they are doing, they need to be able to look at it and figure out whats going on in a minute or so instead of say coming up to you and being like "what the fuck did you do here?" and taking hours running him through your own logic and structure. And, like I said before, the fact that you need to make one difficulty for any game means you're going to structure the coding (and create toolkits) to be able to tune as much as possible on the fly. Here's the devs of MLB The Show changing pretty much anything on the fly in a stream showing off new stuff like animations. Within seconds, they can make it so the batter only hits ground balls to 1st base so they can test the pitcher covering 1st animations as seen in the clip.

That's how games are tested and balanced regardless if there's only a single difficulty or 5 of them. So making say combat, by far the most prevalent type of gameplay, harder or easier is extremely simple because the tools are already there along with how combat is dictated by really simple math. No one is saying every game must have an easy or hard difficulty, but claiming a dev adding in such modes would ever ruin a game or take away polish/features due to time and resources is just asinine. And, how unbalanced the vast majority of video games actually are makes the whole argument that it takes days/weeks/months getting just "normal" difficulty balanced and that each mode added will take just as long completely nonsensical.

Phoenixmgs:
I've taken a handful of programming classes in my college days, I understand the core logic and how you have think about how you're going to structure the program before you even start coding. Before you start coding, you have to think about how it's going to be structured and stuff you know will probably have to altered has to be both easy to alter and easy to find. Especially in such a big project like a game, you are not the only one coding the game so if someone else needs to use say your subroutine for what they are doing, they need to be able to look at it and figure out whats going on in a minute or so instead of say coming up to you and being like "what the fuck did you do here?" and taking hours running him through your own logic and structure. And, like I said before, the fact that you need to make one difficulty for any game means you're going to structure the coding (and create toolkits) to be able to tune as much as possible on the fly. Here's the devs of MLB The Show changing pretty much anything on the fly in a stream showing off new stuff like animations. Within seconds, they can make it so the batter only hits ground balls to 1st base so they can test the pitcher covering 1st animations as seen in the clip.

That's how games are tested and balanced regardless if there's only a single difficulty or 5 of them. So making say combat, by far the most prevalent type of gameplay, harder or easier is extremely simple because the tools are already there along with how combat is dictated by really simple math. No one is saying every game must have an easy or hard difficulty, but claiming a dev adding in such modes would ever ruin a game or take away polish/features due to time and resources is just asinine. And, how unbalanced the vast majority of video games actually are makes the whole argument that it takes days/weeks/months getting just "normal" difficulty balanced and that each mode added will take just as long completely nonsensical.

Makes sense. I also took a few programming classes in college.

But when a company designs a game, the objective is to make the target audience happy, so those people buy it, play it, like it, tell their friends, then they buy it, and everyone comes back to buy the next game. The overall game design changes depending on how broad or narrow the target audience is, and I think it changes in more ways than just adding or not including difficulty modes.

If a developer decides they want their game to appeal to good/driven gamers and bad/lazy gamers, and everyone in between, that's going to result in a different game than one that just focuses on good/driven to average gamers. They may decide not to include deep, smart content because they know the less serious gamer is not going to care about that. They may add silly, slapstick content because they think the less serious gamer will like it.

In my experience, what typically ends up happening in games that try to be all-inclusive is... when in doubt, dumb it down. Err on the side of dumb.

When you try to make everyone happy, you usually end up making nobody as happy as they could be. A developer should be allowed to make specialized games that focus on a narrow target audience, without facing criticism.

CritialGaming:
Round and round we go. Can't reason with a wall apparently. Should have known better. I'm done here, things don't make sense anymore.

If you don't want things going round in circles, don't keep going back to the same arguments. I tried to keep my responses varied but you insisted on repeating the same old stuff. A little self-awareness wouldn't kill you.

And since this is, I believe, the third time you've said you're giving up, you'll forgive me if I take your declaration with a pinch of salt and keep checking my watch until you make another reply.

Kerg3927:
Dude... we're talking about Dark Souls? It currently doesn't have an easy mode? I'm defending that choice? Any of that ring a bell?

Not quite. You are arguing against the inclusion of an easy mode, claiming to be defending the developers' choice is merely your current way of supporting that argument. But its a poor support because if you really just cared about the developers' choices then you wouldn't care if they added an easy mode. Because that would still be their choice. Which means what you're really saying is that you're supporting the developers' choice...as long as they choose to do it your way. Starting to see why I've been pointing out you're the entitled one this whole time yet?

Kerg3927:
Hidetaka Miyazaki is the one who decided that including an easy mode in Dark Souls would be "inferior." Not me. He decided not to do it. The Souls series is one of the greatest success stories in the history of video games. Why don't you go tell him that his game design sucks?

A.) Give me the quote or at least cite your sources there dude, because otherwise you could say any old thing and claim someone else said it
B.) Yeah I'd probably have the same questions for him as I do for you. All the ones along the lines of "Why does harder somehow equal superior? Why pick endure over enjoy?" Though he might actually explain some his choices instead of insisting that it just is, or pretending that he's helping people like you've been doing

Kerg3927:
See above.

Okay, I've seen above. Where exactly was the explanation of where I was creating strawmen? A strawman argument is so called because I am inventing a fake person (the eponymous straw man) who has wild and fanciful arguments and then arguing against them rather than you. As I said, an example of a strawman argument in this case would be me trying to insist that people like you just want all games to be only a hard mode forever. Because that's not something anyone has actually suggested, just me inventing an extreme viewpoint that I can point the flaws in. What's the extreme argument here? Are you trying to say that no-one is claiming people playing on easy is inferior? You literally just said thats what Miyazaki apparently believes. Are you trying to say that you aren't claiming people playing on easy is inferior? I've already provided a list of quotes of you doing exactly that once, I can do it again. Be longer too, I've got more pages to grab them from now. If you're going to try and use terminology you think makes you sound smart, could you at least use it right?

Kerg3927:
A brick wall is impenetrable. An obstacle is not. It's something that can usually be overcome by those who put in the effort. Big difference.

If an (American) football coach says, "I need all of my offensive linemen to be able to bench press at least 225 pounds, or they can't play," that's an obstacle. If he doesn't lower that requirement, that means he's not "bending." But it doesn't make it a brick wall.

"Be at this level or get lost" sounds pretty impassable to me. He's a coach, why isn't he trying to train them up to that level if thats what he requires? Why is he not seeing if thats actually an achievable target? This Coach Metaphor guy continues to sound like he's pretty terrible at his job

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Of course a coach sets the challenges at a reasonable, obtainable level for players that he thinks are good enough and driven enough to make the team. And if they really and truly can't overcome that threshold or simply don't want to put in the effort, then they don't get to play. End of story. They are free to go play something else. That's life.

Ah so you agree that a coach (which, remember, is a stand in for the game) should set challenges that are appropriate for the player, that they actually have a chance at succeeding. So why are you against easy modes? Because that would be what easy modes are. Sticking to the sport analogy, they're the warm-up before the main event rather than being immediately asking to do 100 laps

Genuinely missed this, or hoping I wouldn't notice you'd ignored it?

Kerg3927:
I simply clarified that I was thinking about a team sport. Sorry for the original omission. My bad.

I was talking about the "dynamic" of a coach teaching a player the virtues of overcoming difficult challenges, and how players are usually thankful of the tough love afterward but may be resentful of it initially. It's pretty incredible, and I've experienced it and seen it first hand. And I think it is a core dynamic at play in the Souls game design. I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept. Maybe it would be helpful if you watched a sports movie? How about Hoosiers or maybe Remember the Titans?

I still don't get why you think its a team dynamic when its a single player experience. The two are not analogous and don't work as comparisons. There is no team in Dark Souls. No-one is being "let down" by anyone else's performance. Someone else on easy does not affect you on hard.

Tough love is a teaching style, not a difficulty level. You can apply tough love to coaching children or adults, but it doesn't mean you can pit one against the other. At the end of it, you still need to actually coach, still need to teach, still need to train. Shouting at someone doesn't magically make them better, you need to actually understand what they can accomplish, and if thats all you've taken from your sports movies then I think you've failed to understand them

Kerg3927:
But when a company designs a game, the objective is to make the target audience happy, so those people buy it, play it, like it, tell their friends, then they buy it, and everyone comes back to buy the next game. The overall game design changes depending on how broad or narrow the target audience is, and I think it changes in more ways than just adding or not including difficulty modes.

If a developer decides they want their game to appeal to good/driven gamers and bad/lazy gamers, and everyone in between, that's going to result in a different game than one that just focuses on good/driven to average gamers. They may decide not to include deep, smart content because they know the less serious gamer is not going to care about that. They may add silly, slapstick content because they think the less serious gamer will like it.

In my experience, what typically ends up happening in games that try to be all-inclusive is... when in doubt, dumb it down. Err on the side of dumb.

When you try to make everyone happy, you usually end up making nobody as happy as they could be. A developer should be allowed to make specialized games that focus on a narrow target audience, without facing criticism.

You can make games with great depth that require skill to master while making it fun for everyone. Just look at the very easy modes in Bayonetta and Vanquish. Those games aren't any worse or dumbed down while allowing everyone to have their fun. If someone thinks playing as a witch beating up angels sounds like a fun time, why should they have 2nd thoughts about it possibly being too difficult? And maybe those more casual gamers end up really digging the game and want to take the time to master the game and end up adding to the "core" audience for a sequel or other games like it. A little extra work to expand your audience is hardly a loss on the quality of the game itself.

Platinum makes some of the most hardcore games and part of their philosophy is making the game fun for anyone that is interested in said game.

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:
But when a company designs a game, the objective is to make the target audience happy, so those people buy it, play it, like it, tell their friends, then they buy it, and everyone comes back to buy the next game. The overall game design changes depending on how broad or narrow the target audience is, and I think it changes in more ways than just adding or not including difficulty modes.

If a developer decides they want their game to appeal to good/driven gamers and bad/lazy gamers, and everyone in between, that's going to result in a different game than one that just focuses on good/driven to average gamers. They may decide not to include deep, smart content because they know the less serious gamer is not going to care about that. They may add silly, slapstick content because they think the less serious gamer will like it.

In my experience, what typically ends up happening in games that try to be all-inclusive is... when in doubt, dumb it down. Err on the side of dumb.

When you try to make everyone happy, you usually end up making nobody as happy as they could be. A developer should be allowed to make specialized games that focus on a narrow target audience, without facing criticism.

You can make games with great depth that require skill to master while making it fun for everyone. Just look at the very easy modes in Bayonetta and Vanquish. Those games aren't any worse or dumbed down while allowing everyone to have their fun. If someone thinks playing as a witch beating up angels sounds like a fun time, why should they have 2nd thoughts about it possibly being too difficult? And maybe those more casual gamers end up really digging the game and want to take the time to master the game and end up adding to the "core" audience for a sequel or other games like it. A little extra work to expand your audience is hardly a loss on the quality of the game itself.

Platinum makes some of the most hardcore games and part of their philosophy is making the game fun for anyone that is interested in said game.

Which brings us back to the question of why every game needs easy modes? If developers want to include them, then more power to them, but if they choose not to, that's also their choice. It's also in the case of Souls why people have discussed and waxed philosophical about it far more often than a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, or any other typical action game. Google "What makes (insert game name) so special" and see what comes up for each.

Not to say games with various difficulty modes aren't great or special, but chances are if they went with a specific, unwavering design philosophy at the risk of decreased sales they'd garner more additional respect and adulation than would've ever been brought up otherwise.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Dude... we're talking about Dark Souls? It currently doesn't have an easy mode? I'm defending that choice? Any of that ring a bell?

Not quite. You are arguing against the inclusion of an easy mode, claiming to be defending the developers' choice is merely your current way of supporting that argument. But its a poor support because if you really just cared about the developers' choices then you wouldn't care if they added an easy mode. Because that would still be their choice. Which means what you're really saying is that you're supporting the developers' choice...as long as they choose to do it your way. Starting to see why I've been pointing out you're the entitled one this whole time yet?

I'm sorry you don't understand, or refuse to understand.

A person in the neighborhood has a red house. A mob of people show up with torches demanding that the homeowner paint his house blue instead. A neighbor steps outside and says go away, it's his house, he can have a red house if he wants. The mob screams, why are you being mean and trying to stop us from forcing him to paint his house blue??? Neighbor says wtf?

You see the difference? The neighbor is being defensive against the aggressor. But the mob is trying to twist it around and make the neighbor into the aggressor. That is a misrepresentation of my position for the purpose of trying to paint me as the bad guy so you can play the victim card - in other words, it's a straw man.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Hidetaka Miyazaki is the one who decided that including an easy mode in Dark Souls would be "inferior." Not me. He decided not to do it. The Souls series is one of the greatest success stories in the history of video games. Why don't you go tell him that his game design sucks?

A.) Give me the quote or at least cite your sources there dude, because otherwise you could say any old thing and claim someone else said it
B.) Yeah I'd probably have the same questions for him as I do for you. All the ones along the lines of "Why does harder somehow equal superior? Why pick endure over enjoy?" Though he might actually explain some his choices instead of insisting that it just is, or pretending that he's helping people like you've been doing

Go play Dark Souls. There's your source. It doesn't have an easy mode. Miyazaki was the creator and director, and he is widely respected. He obviously decided that it was better that it not have one, because it doesn't have one.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
See above.

Okay, I've seen above.

See above again.

Pallindromemordnillap:
A strawman argument is so called because I am inventing a fake person (the eponymous straw man) who has wild and fanciful arguments and then arguing against them rather than you. ...inventing an extreme viewpoint that I can point the flaws in. ... If you're going to try and use terminology you think makes you sound smart, could you at least use it right?

See the definition of straw man. It doesn't have to be wild and fanciful or extreme. Just misrepresented.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
A brick wall is impenetrable. An obstacle is not. It's something that can usually be overcome by those who put in the effort. Big difference.

If an (American) football coach says, "I need all of my offensive linemen to be able to bench press at least 225 pounds, or they can't play," that's an obstacle. If he doesn't lower that requirement, that means he's not "bending." But it doesn't make it a brick wall.

"Be at this level or get lost" sounds pretty impassable to me. He's a coach, why isn't he trying to train them up to that level if thats what he requires? Why is he not seeing if thats actually an achievable target? This Coach Metaphor guy continues to sound like he's pretty terrible at his job

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. He is training them. He gives them a workout regiment and says hit the weights.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Ah so you agree that a coach (which, remember, is a stand in for the game) should set challenges that are appropriate for the player, that they actually have a chance at succeeding. So why are you against easy modes? Because that would be what easy modes are. Sticking to the sport analogy, they're the warm-up before the main event rather than being immediately asking to do 100 laps

Genuinely missed this, or hoping I wouldn't notice you'd ignored it?

I ignored it because it's nonsense. More misrepresentations. There is a difference between a coach tailoring a challenge separately for each individual player on the team vs. setting ONE challenge the same for all players. I'm talking about the latter scenario. You're accusing me of saying the former, which I did not.

Again, since you obviously don't know much about sports, I suggest watching a sports movie so you can understand some of the things I'm talking about.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I still don't get why you think its a team dynamic when its a single player experience. The two are not analogous and don't work as comparisons. There is no team in Dark Souls. No-one is being "let down" by anyone else's performance. Someone else on easy does not affect you on hard.

Tough love is a teaching style, not a difficulty level. You can apply tough love to coaching children or adults, but it doesn't mean you can pit one against the other. At the end of it, you still need to actually coach, still need to teach, still need to train. Shouting at someone doesn't magically make them better, you need to actually understand what they can accomplish, and if thats all you've taken from your sports movies then I think you've failed to understand them

It's not a "team dynamic." It's a player-coach dynamic that occurs in team sports.

I'm sorry you don't understand. My bad for assuming you would.

Really, dude. Check out Hoosiers. Highly regarded sports movie. Example...

Now in this clip, the coach says he expects the players to listen to him when he's talking. All of the players. Those who can't do that or don't want to do that can hit the road. But you would say he's a bad coach. That he should make exceptions for some players, so that those who don't want to listen don't have to. But that's not the way it works. Everyone gets treated equally. The coach makes the rules. Just like a game developer makes the rules. And you are free to leave if you don't like it.

hanselthecaretaker:
Which brings us back to the question of why every game needs easy modes? If developers want to include them, then more power to them, but if they choose not to, that?s also their choice. It?s also in the case of Souls why people have discussed and waxed philosophical about it far more often than a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, or any other typical action game. Google ?What makes (insert game name) so special? and see what comes up for each.

Not to say games with various difficulty modes aren?t great or special, but chances are if they went with a specific, unwavering design philosophy at the risk of decreased sales they?d garner more additional respect and adulation than would?ve ever been brought up otherwise.

That was never the question, nobody is demanding that every game have an easy mode. Difficulty isn't what makes the Souls games special, it never was. A standard online shooter is far more difficult than a Souls game skill-wise basically across the board, you need far better reactions to play a shooter well against human opponents. If an easy mode would break/ruin a Souls game, why would Miyazaki even ponder such a mode for the series?

Who the hell cares about how much respect or adulation a game garners? CDPR and Witcher 3 have garner a shit-ton of that and I didn't even find Witcher 3 to be a good game. I just care about how much I enjoy a game and nothing else. And a game having an easy mode isn't going to affect how good the game is so why should it matter?

Phoenixmgs:
That was never the question, nobody is demanding that every game have an easy mode. Difficulty isn't what makes the Souls games special, it never was. A standard online shooter is far more difficult than a Souls game skill-wise basically across the board, you need far better reactions to play a shooter well against human opponents. If an easy mode would break/ruin a Souls game, why would Miyazaki even ponder such a mode for the series?

The publisher came out a week later saying that Miyazaki was mistranslated in that quote...

Kotaku article

Anyone is free to believe that is bullshit if they want, but that's the official stance.

Phoenixmgs:
Who the hell cares about how much respect or adulation a game garners? CDPR and Witcher 3 have garner a shit-ton of that and I didn't even find Witcher 3 to be a good game. I just care about how much I enjoy a game and nothing else. And a game having an easy mode isn't going to affect how good the game is so why should it matter?

People care. They just do. You can say they shouldn't care, and that would be your opinion. But being a Dark Souls fan is a point of pride for people.

If you're chatting with another gamer and you mention how much you love Dark Souls, that says something that every gamer instantly recognizes and understands. Not another word need be spoken. It says I am not afraid of a challenge, I thrive on it. It says that's the type a person I am. It's an identity.

And I think that's why its fans are so defensive of it. It's great the way it is. Please don't change it. Please don't fuck it up. Because there are very few games like it.

Phoenixmgs:
A standard online shooter is far more difficult than a Souls game skill-wise basically across the board, you need far better reactions to play a shooter well against human opponents.

There's (much) more to skill than reaction speed anyway, but that aside, I'm not convinced of this (as somebody who played online shooters pretty frequently, and wasn't half bad).

Humans are more unpredictable than your average Soulsborne enemies, sure, but the latter often require more reading of subtle cues, as well as more varied tactics to deal with. Reaction speed requirements are also pretty close I'd say, depending on the situation in the FPS, but you can sleepwalk through certain matchups in a lot of FPSes.

Phoenixmgs:
Platinum makes some of the most hardcore games and part of their philosophy is making the game fun for anyone that is interested in said game.

Someone posted this video in my RPGCodex thread. I'm just gonna copy what I said there.

That explains why I'm cold towards their games. They're made to be easy for newbs and hard to master, using scores to encourage them to get better, but I don't care about scores and just find their easiness (Breezing through most of Bayonetta's normal difficulty using the same few combos, constantly healing with Rising's ridiculous harvesting system and playing Vanquish with a lot of cover because I didn't have the skill level to stay in the open throughout.) boring. Rising is the only one I felt like replaying (but I've had it longer).

Also, some of the things he talks about with Vanquish sound like exploits. Like quickly switching from slide to roll to slide so that you don't use stamina. That's not a good thing, I don't think.

hanselthecaretaker:

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:
But when a company designs a game, the objective is to make the target audience happy, so those people buy it, play it, like it, tell their friends, then they buy it, and everyone comes back to buy the next game. The overall game design changes depending on how broad or narrow the target audience is, and I think it changes in more ways than just adding or not including difficulty modes.

If a developer decides they want their game to appeal to good/driven gamers and bad/lazy gamers, and everyone in between, that's going to result in a different game than one that just focuses on good/driven to average gamers. They may decide not to include deep, smart content because they know the less serious gamer is not going to care about that. They may add silly, slapstick content because they think the less serious gamer will like it.

In my experience, what typically ends up happening in games that try to be all-inclusive is... when in doubt, dumb it down. Err on the side of dumb.

When you try to make everyone happy, you usually end up making nobody as happy as they could be. A developer should be allowed to make specialized games that focus on a narrow target audience, without facing criticism.

You can make games with great depth that require skill to master while making it fun for everyone. Just look at the very easy modes in Bayonetta and Vanquish. Those games aren't any worse or dumbed down while allowing everyone to have their fun. If someone thinks playing as a witch beating up angels sounds like a fun time, why should they have 2nd thoughts about it possibly being too difficult? And maybe those more casual gamers end up really digging the game and want to take the time to master the game and end up adding to the "core" audience for a sequel or other games like it. A little extra work to expand your audience is hardly a loss on the quality of the game itself.

Platinum makes some of the most hardcore games and part of their philosophy is making the game fun for anyone that is interested in said game.

Which brings us back to the question of why every game needs easy modes? If developers want to include them, then more power to them, but if they choose not to, that?s also their choice. It?s also in the case of Souls why people have discussed and waxed philosophical about it far more often than a game like Bayonetta, Vanquish, or any other typical action game. Google ?What makes (insert game name) so special? and see what comes up for each.

Not to say games with various difficulty modes aren?t great or special, but chances are if they went with a specific, unwavering design philosophy at the risk of decreased sales they?d garner more additional respect and adulation than would?ve ever been brought up otherwise.

The Souls games, without using multiple difficulties and a grading system, have more interesting difficulty to me, because it feels more... important (Important because it's about survival and grit instead of being cool and getting a good score.) and organic. They make it hard, but not so difficult that most won't be able to finish it. Platinum's normal difficulties just bore me. I breezed through most of Bayonetta. By the time I'm done with them, I don't feel like replaying them.

Kerg3927:
The publisher came out a week later saying that Miyazaki was mistranslated in that quote...

Kotaku article

Anyone is free to believe that is bullshit if they want, but that's the official stance.

Phoenixmgs:
Who the hell cares about how much respect or adulation a game garners? CDPR and Witcher 3 have garner a shit-ton of that and I didn't even find Witcher 3 to be a good game. I just care about how much I enjoy a game and nothing else. And a game having an easy mode isn't going to affect how good the game is so why should it matter?

People care. They just do. You can say they shouldn't care, and that would be your opinion. But being a Dark Souls fan is a point of pride for people.

If you're chatting with another gamer and you mention how much you love Dark Souls, that says something that every gamer instantly recognizes and understands. Not another word need be spoken. It says I am not afraid of a challenge, I thrive on it. It says that's the type a person I am. It's an identity.

And I think that's why its fans are so defensive of it. It's great the way it is. Please don't change it. Please don't fuck it up. Because there are very few games like it.

My fault, a past Jimquisition referenced that article.

Again, who cares? Several games like COD are disrespected and criticized to shit and they sell a fuck-ton more than a Souls game. EA has been voted worst company for several years so how are they still fiscally solvent if stuff like that mattered?

If someone tells me they play/like/love the Souls games, it means almost nothing to me as far as how good a gamer they are because Souls games are EASY. Someone liking the Souls games just means cool, you're a gamer and I can talk in-depth about games. If someone says they love the Souls games with a pride or "air" about them that comes off as show-offish, I giggle and actually list of games you actually need to "git gud" at. Also, the Souls community stole that meme from the MGO2 community, an actually hard game. And, you're doing it wrong if you don't put "n3" after "git gud".

Silvanus:

Phoenixmgs:
A standard online shooter is far more difficult than a Souls game skill-wise basically across the board, you need far better reactions to play a shooter well against human opponents.

There's (much) more to skill than reaction speed anyway, but that aside, I'm not convinced of this (as somebody who played online shooters pretty frequently, and wasn't half bad).

Humans are more unpredictable than your average Soulsborne enemies, sure, but the latter often require more reading of subtle cues, as well as more varied tactics to deal with. Reaction speed requirements are also pretty close I'd say, depending on the situation in the FPS, but you can sleepwalk through certain matchups in a lot of FPSes.

You must be joking that you need to read Souls' enemies. The same strategy works on every enemy in the game. The only playstyle in a Souls game that even requires some skill in reading enemies is the "pro" playstyle (aka Bloodborne playstyle). If you play it any other way (with a shield, as a mage, with arrows, etc.), you don't have to react to much at all, you don't even have to dodge. Sure, it doesn't take much skill pubstomp some newbs in a shooter, but to compete against good players, it's all about skill and anticipating what the other player is going to do while disguising what you want to do.

Ezekiel:
Someone posted this video in my RPGCodex thread. I'm just gonna copy what I said there.

That explains why I'm cold towards their games. They're made to be easy for newbs and hard to master, using scores to encourage them to get better, but I don't care about scores and just find their easiness (Breezing through most of Bayonetta's normal difficulty using the same few combos, constantly healing with Rising's ridiculous harvesting system and playing Vanquish with a lot of cover because I didn't have the skill level to stay in the open throughout.) boring. Rising is the only one I felt like replaying (but I've had it longer).

Also, some of the things he talks about with Vanquish sound like exploits. Like quickly switching from slide to roll to slide so that you don't use stamina. That's not a good thing, I don't think.

One of the core things that makes a game good is being easy to pick up and play while being hard to master. Even the creator of Pong said that. But not to Ezekiel that lives in bizarro world. Even without the ever-so-slight boost-dodge "exploit", you'd still know to do that based on the basic mechanics of the game being that when you're not using energy, it's always refreshing so, of course, you'll think to break up sliding with dodges vs sliding for long stretches. It's a small reward for maximizing the game's mechanics.

And you just gloss over the following of what Mark Brown said:
Platinum fans master these games for a more intrinsic reason; the ability to look and feel awesome when you play.

AKA, It's not about the scores.

Ezekiel:
The Souls games, without using multiple difficulties and a grading system, have more interesting difficulty to me, because it feels more... important (Important because it's about survival and grit instead of being cool and getting a good score.) and organic. They make it hard, but not so difficult that most won't be able to finish it. Platinum's normal difficulties just bore me. I breezed through most of Bayonetta. By the time I'm done with them, I don't feel like replaying them.

The Souls games are joke easy and you can exploit the shit out of them by not even trying. "Heard these games are hard, I'll try Dark Souls as a crafty rogue that relies on dodging and backstabs." Oh, strafing breaks the game and I can still block everything with a shield even though I'm dex-based. "Mages are always fun, being a glass cannon and such." Oh, magic breaks boss fights. "Bow and arrows are rewarding requiring skill and precision." Oh, the AI just sits there getting hit by arrow after arrow, how fun!

Puts in Dragon's Dogma. Ah, here we go, everything feels much better, playing as a rogue, mage, ranger isn't a cakewalk.

It's always been about the scores. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see so many DMC4 videos on YouTube with "SSS" in the titles.

Games, most of them, are supposed to be challenging. Bayonetta fails because it's so concerned with you looking cool. Normal mode is a breeze. It doesn't even let you play higher difficulties until you've beaten the game.

Dragon's Dogma isn't very good. Very generic. Bland level design. Trashy story. Horrible dialogue. A creepy slave pawn system. Shallow combat. I'll let my homeboy or whatever you call him explain it.

3/5 at best. Souls is a 4.

Kerg3927:

A person in the neighborhood has a red house. A mob of people show up with torches demanding that the homeowner paint his house blue instead. A neighbor steps outside and says go away, it's his house, he can have a red house if he wants. The mob screams, why are you being mean and trying to stop us from forcing him to paint his house blue??? Neighbor says wtf?

You see the difference? The neighbor is being defensive against the aggressor. But the mob is trying to twist it around and make the neighbor into the aggressor. That is a misrepresentation of my position for the purpose of trying to paint me as the bad guy so you can play the victim card - in other words, it's a straw man.

This is probably your worst analogy yet. It hits the trifecta of being utterly wrong, poorly applied and revealing a lot more about your real motivations than you think.
-For a start, Dark Souls is not something private, like a random dude's house, its something made for public consumption.
-Demanding the house be blue instead of red means people who do want red miss out, whereas adding an easy mode won't take away the hard mode.
-You providing an analogy that is completely bonkers would be the misrepresentation here I'm afraid. I'm calling you out on things you've actually said and opinions you obviously hold. There is no strawman here

Trying to bear some of these things in mind, here is a better analogy: A man is trying to sell a house, a house that has the internal walls painted red. A potential buyer who has shown an interest comes in and has a look and says "Hmmm, I like most of what I see but you know I might prefer if these walls were blue". At which point you jump in from the house you've bought next door and start yelling "Get red or get rekt scrub!" You are not the lone hero, much though your narcissism would apparently have you believe, you are not the only sane man yelling a truth no-one will believe. You're just an arsehole on the internet who doesn't like other people enjoying a thing he enjoys, a child throwing a tantrum because people aren't playing his way. And you not liking that does not, I'm afraid, somehow make it misrepresentation.

Kerg3927:
Go play Dark Souls. There's your source. It doesn't have an easy mode. Miyazaki was the creator and director, and he is widely respected. He obviously decided that it was better that it not have one, because it doesn't have one.

You see how you've gone from "Miyazaki said this" to "Well he didn't actually say this"? And you say I'm the one trying to misrepresent facts...
Also, new piece of terminology for you to misuse when you try throwing it back at me later; circular logic. Your argument here is "Dark Souls doesn't have an easy mode therefore it's better without an easy mode. And its better without an easy mode because it doesn't have an easy mode. And it doesn't have an easy mode therefore its better without an easy mode. And its better without..." and so on and so on. You need to back up what your saying with something other than "My argument is true because my argument is true therefore my argument must be true" We have these things called facts, try using them from time to time

Kerg3927:
See above again.

See the definition of straw man. It doesn't have to be wild and fanciful or extreme. Just misrepresented.

Okay...but what am I misrepresenting? I asked you that last post, pretty plainly. You have failed to provide any actual answers. I assume, based on your previous couple of points, that you seem to think me portraying you as a narcissist, an elitist and the bad guy in this scenario is a misrepresentation...but, dude, you're all of those things. You hurl insults at people because they're not playing the way you're playing. Every analogy you come up with portrays people who play on easy mode as lazy, unfit, stupid, or caterpillars that one time, with you often appearing or at least implied by the terms of the analogy to be the exact opposite of those things. You spent a lot of time trying to insist you're just defending designers' choices and yet...

Kerg3927:
Games that keep getting dumbed down and watered down more and more because of the whiners.

Don't care much for their choices if they're choosing to include an easy mode, do you? No, now they're "dumbing down", now they're just full of whiners. You only care about defending a choice if that choice has been to make things your way. Thats both elitism and hypocrisy, nice job.
Sorry, but once again this is not misrepresentation. This is just you having an idea of what you want to be in your head, absolutely not being it in the real world and me calling you out on it. You not wanting me to call you out on it does not change that.

Kerg3927:
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. He is training them. He gives them a workout regiment and says hit the weights.

Er, no, at no point in your metaphor was training ever actually mentioned or brought up. Your exact premise was:

Kerg3927:
But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

Where's the training? Where's the help? There's just demanding a player either do what is demanded or quit.
By adding in the concept of a workout regimen you've altered what you're actually trying to say; because now he's got to understand his players more, now he's got to think a bit about what advice he gives. Maybe one guy is hitting the weights to the required amount its just he needs a change in diet, maybe one guy simply has a scheduling problem so they need to plan his workouts around that. This would bring me to...

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Ah so you agree that a coach (which, remember, is a stand in for the game) should set challenges that are appropriate for the player, that they actually have a chance at succeeding. So why are you against easy modes? Because that would be what easy modes are. Sticking to the sport analogy, they're the warm-up before the main event rather than being immediately asking to do 100 laps

Genuinely missed this, or hoping I wouldn't notice you'd ignored it?

I ignored it because it's nonsense. More misrepresentations. There is a difference between a coach tailoring a challenge separately for each individual player on the team vs. setting ONE challenge the same for all players. I'm talking about the latter scenario. You're accusing me of saying the former, which I did not.

...you apparently deciding that the workout regimen you just insisted a coach should doing somehow does not equate to tailoring a challenge for each individual player.
The rate you keep hurling "Misrepresentation! Strawman! Misrepresentation!" at me is really making me think you have no idea what those words actually mean but are just hoping they'll automatically and magically vanish my arguments. Not how that works. I know you're trying to insist a single challenge for all would be better, I just think thats stupid and wrong and am disagreeing with you. Even you disagree with you given you just had to modify your above argument. Its not misrepresentation, you just have a poor argument that you're defending poorly.

Kerg3927:
Again, since you obviously don't know much about sports, I suggest watching a sports movie so you can understand some of the things I'm talking about.

So much to unpack from one little sentence:
-What is this nebulous single entity you call "sports"? I did not know every sport somehow worked the same everywhere all the time, especially given your previous insistence that a team coach and a one to one coach are different scenarios. Seems that wouldn't be the case if all we have is this one big "sport" thing.
-Does me not knowing much about sport matter much, or indeed at all? We're not talking about sports. We're talking about coaching styles and even that is just a metaphor for talking about video games. Sports does not come into it.
-Your attempt at proving your point is to point at movies? To point at fictional events that work on a narrative structure rather than any real world logic? You're not going to quote any actual sport stars, you're not going to point at any real life coaches, you're going for movies? Not the strongest argument there.

I get you're desperate to try and be right about something, anything, at this stage, but this was a rather pathetic attempt at scoring a point that has only served to highlight how little you actually know yourself. Think harder next time you try and jump in with something like this.

Kerg3927:
It's not a "team dynamic." It's a player-coach dynamic that occurs in team sports.

I'm sorry you don't understand. My bad for assuming you would.

A player/coach dynamic occurs in any scenario where you have a player and a coach. Its why I remain baffled as to why you insist on making this about team sports...oh no wait, its because I mentioned I've got two coaches in my family and you've realised that gives me the advantage in talking about this, so you're trying to keep them out the equation.
Seriously, team sports is a poor fit for what we're talking about. Because in a team you have to work with other people. You all have to be on a certain level because otherwise you aren't going to work together well. That is not true in Dark Souls. It doesn't matter if a player wants to stick to easy mode because its only them playing. They're not creating an imbalance because the only performance that is affected is theirs. Meaning that your insistence on sticking to team sports for your comparisons is in fact a genuine misrepresentation. Not one of your "I just don't like what you're saying" misrepresentations but a real "This is not how that works" misrepresentation.

Kerg3927:
Really, dude. Check out Hoosiers. Highly regarded sports movie. Example...

[Video Snippet]

Now in this clip, the coach says he expects the players to listen to him when he's talking. All of the players. Those who can't do that or don't want to do that can hit the road. But you would say he's a bad coach. That he should make exceptions for some players, so that those who don't want to listen don't have to. But that's not the way it works. Everyone gets treated equally. The coach makes the rules. Just like a game developer makes the rules. And you are free to leave if you don't like it.

I haven't seen enough to judge the coaching style of that character. But purely on that clip alone his performance does not fit the argument you are trying to make. Because he doesn't treat everyone equally, he recognises that one player is going to have an attitude problem and moves to confront it. He tailors his approach based on what he can see of the players. His actions support my arguments; that a coach who's good at his job needs to recognise different players are going to need different things of him, and that you have misunderstood every sports movie you have ever watched

Phoenixmgs:

You must be joking that you need to read Souls' enemies. The same strategy works on every enemy in the game. The only playstyle in a Souls game that even requires some skill in reading enemies is the "pro" playstyle (aka Bloodborne playstyle). If you play it any other way (with a shield, as a mage, with arrows, etc.), you don't have to react to much at all, you don't even have to dodge. Sure, it doesn't take much skill pubstomp some newbs in a shooter, but to compete against good players, it's all about skill and anticipating what the other player is going to do while disguising what you want to do.

Admittedly, I'm far better acquainted with Bloodborne than Dark Souls.

Still, from what I can see, you approach every enemy in those games with the same strategy, you'll get obliterated.

Ezekiel:
It's always been about the scores. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see so many DMC4 videos on YouTube with "SSS" in the titles.

Games, most of them, are supposed to be challenging. Bayonetta fails because it's so concerned with you looking cool. Normal mode is a breeze. It doesn't even let you play higher difficulties until you've beaten the game.

Dragon's Dogma isn't very good. Very generic. Bland level design. Trashy story. Horrible dialogue. A creepy slave pawn system. Shallow combat. I'll let my homeboy or whatever you call him explain it.

3/5 at best. Souls is a 4.

If it's always been about the scores, then why don't all games with leaderboards or some type of scoring system have near the amount of combo videos as Platinum's games? Getting top ranks doesn't mean that much besides for being relatively fast, taking no damage, and varying up combos (not just doing the same thing over again). Combos videos are watched just for the sheer skill and creativity, not to see someone get the highest rank, much like say StealthGamerBR Dishonored video. Bayonetta is easy? Yet you have said you used "cheap" items while you complained about not being able to read the enemies' animations. You wouldn't be able to play higher than Normal if you don't know how to dodge offset. The game is meant to be beat if that's all you want to do but even normal is trying to teach the game with Jeane fights and I believe one Gracious and Glorious fight.

Hilarious as Vanquish gets a big shout-out in that video. Plus, they both liked Dragon's Dogma and loved aspects of it. The game is all about the beast fights, which still set the bar as the best. DD's Hydra and Griffin fights put stuff like Dark Souls' Hydra and Witcher 3's Griffin to shame. And, DD is actual FUN to play. Sure a bunch of other stuff is shit. The night/day cycle in DD is something else that is really well done. It's like the opposite of Witcher 3 (good writing/shit gameplay), and I'd rather have a fun game than a well written one if I had to choose between the two.

Silvanus:
Admittedly, I'm far better acquainted with Bloodborne than Dark Souls.

Still, from what I can see, you approach every enemy in those games with the same strategy, you'll get obliterated.

All you do is the exact same thing against every enemy in all the Souls games (embedded video cued up); dodge enemy, then hit with stick. Coming from faster paced action games, the enemies in Souls games are so obvious and slow. Bloodborne ups their speed and aggression but outside of a few enemies like the Blood-Starved Beast, Father Gascoigne, and the other hunters, most of the enemies are pretty damn tame. The proper Souls games (as in having Souls in the title) only play slower (I've only played Dark Souls and Bloodborne) and have playstyles that require almost no skill at all to succeed. Bloodborne at least forced you into playing with some skill. Though just about every enemy can be so easily stun-locked by mashing R1 with basically any weapon.

Pallindromemordnillap:
-For a start, Dark Souls is not something private, like a random dude's house, its something made for public consumption.
-Demanding the house be blue instead of red means people who do want red miss out, whereas adding an easy mode won't take away the hard mode.

The Souls series is owned by FromSoftware. If they wanted to remove it from the market today, they could. If they wanted to rename it Gooseberry Doo Doo Head, they could. If someone demands that the name be changed to Light Souls, they don't have to do that. The point is change. They don't have to change it in any way if they don't want to.

Your latter point is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it affects certain people, at all. It doesn't matter if your argument for a change is a good one or not. It only matters that FromSoftware doesn't have to change it if they don't want to.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Trying to bear some of these things in mind, here is a better analogy: A man is trying to sell a house, a house that has the internal walls painted red. A potential buyer who has shown an interest comes in and has a look and says "Hmmm, I like most of what I see but you know I might prefer if these walls were blue". At which point you jump in from the house you've bought next door and start yelling "Get red or get rekt scrub!"

Which again, is irrelevant, because the fact remains that if the seller doesn't want to paint the walls blue to appease that particular customer, he doesn't have to. He has every right to keep the walls red and sell to someone else who likes red walls.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You see how you've gone from "Miyazaki said this" to "Well he didn't actually say this"? And you say I'm the one trying to misrepresent facts...
Also, new piece of terminology for you to misuse when you try throwing it back at me later; circular logic. Your argument here is "Dark Souls doesn't have an easy mode therefore it's better without an easy mode. And its better without an easy mode because it doesn't have an easy mode. And it doesn't have an easy mode therefore its better without an easy mode. And its better without..." and so on and so on. You need to back up what your saying with something other than "My argument is true because my argument is true therefore my argument must be true" We have these things called facts, try using them from time to time

There you go misrepresenting me again. I didn't say that. Here's the exact quote...

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Instead, here you are trying to insist that adding easy modes is somehow inferior...

Hidetaka Miyazaki is the one who decided that including an easy mode in Dark Souls would be "inferior." Not me. He decided not to do it.

"Decided" not said. It's obvious to me that Miyazaki and FromSoftware decided not to include an easy mode because it doesn't have one. Which means they thought it was the superior choice and a different choice would have been inferior. By the way, if you are confusing the quotation marks around inferior in that post, I'm quoting you there, not Miyazaki.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay...but what am I misrepresenting? I asked you that last post, pretty plainly. You have failed to provide any actual answers.

I explained it to you.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You spent a lot of time trying to insist you're just defending designers' choices and yet... [blah blah blah]

My motivation is irrelevant. If I say, "The sky is blue," and you respond with, "But you're only saying that because you're an asshole," that's not you countering my argument. That's you avoiding it.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I know you're trying to insist a single challenge for all would be better, I just think thats stupid and wrong and am disagreeing with you.

Fine. Everything else you typed leading up to this statement and after it is all rambling nonsense, and so stupid or ignorant that it's not worth responding to. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just posting the sentence above and calling it a day.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
-For a start, Dark Souls is not something private, like a random dude's house, its something made for public consumption.
-Demanding the house be blue instead of red means people who do want red miss out, whereas adding an easy mode won't take away the hard mode.

The Souls series is owned by FromSoftware. If they wanted to remove it from the market today, they could. If they wanted to rename it Gooseberry Doo Doo Head, they could.

It's owned by Namco Bandai. THEY have those rights.

Phoenixmgs:

All you do is the exact same thing against every enemy in all the Souls games (embedded video cued up); dodge enemy, then hit with stick. Coming from faster paced action games, the enemies in Souls games are so obvious and slow. Bloodborne ups their speed and aggression but outside of a few enemies like the Blood-Starved Beast, Father Gascoigne, and the other hunters, most of the enemies are pretty damn tame. The proper Souls games (as in having Souls in the title) only play slower (I've only played Dark Souls and Bloodborne) and have playstyles that require almost no skill at all to succeed. Bloodborne at least forced you into playing with some skill. Though just about every enemy can be so easily stun-locked by mashing R1 with basically any weapon.

Stun-locking with R1 will fail against almost any reasonably-sized enemy in Bloodborne; most of them just shrug it off. Dodging, parrying and attacking also have to be differently timed and differently directed, by learning the enemies' cues and reading their movements.

If you tried to just do basic dodges and R1 the enemies to death, you wouldn't last very long in most mid-game areas, let alone late-game.

I'm really late to the party on this but I guess I might as well outline my stance on adding easier modes and how that doesn't just mean picking Easy at the start.

I think that first of all, we may as well cut out any games or sections of them that would just break when discussing difficulty modes.

We can pretty much axe any title where a large part of the gameplay, if not the whole focus, is Multiplayer.

As an example, Fighting games already have a rep of difficulty modes being all over the place. Usually all the game will do on lower difficulties is leave more openings after attacks but this doesn't help too much if the user has issues with a characters specific moveset.
Not counting straight up unfair gimmicks (OP bosses that can't be controlled by the player, unbalanced challenges such as the MK9 challenge tower final level, etc.) No difficulty in a fighting game will come near the level of actually good players so most of the intended point of the game will not even be affected by playing against the CPU, though it does help in setting a learning curve for new players.
Some fighting games have tried to fix this a bit by including some form of 'easy mode' in the controls themselves. We can see this implemented decently in the Anime fighters using Easy combos. Usually, this means you can pull off a decent combo ending in a Super move, but often these moves will have different damage scaling and will straight up do less damage than a manual combo. Of course, a lot of em will still have the Handicap option for when you're playing against friends.

I think this example already shows where making something easier can go wrong. When the user is given a radically different type of inputs to use like in MVC or in BlazBlues Stylish system, low skill users can actually beat 'better' players with litle to no effort if they use actual intended controls. This kind of stuff can really mess up a user base and can cause drop off due to perceived unfairness in the early months. Though if these things can't be activated in online play, then sure, no problem.

Second, any type of team based multiplayer is going to immediately have similar issues if the user can choose how easy it is for them to win. You can't be expected to enjoy a game where the other team just straight up gets more health or does more damage, has auto-aim, any other decidedly unfair advantage, though it is an extreme example. You can already see this in people bitching about others having better guns in games like Battlefront.

Keep in mind though that making a multiplayer game itself easier is always an option but then you'll still have people with different levels of skill playing together, solving nothing.

For Single player games, I think it really comes down to how difficulty itself can and is implemented.

I think it's easy to say that simply scaling numbers up and down is easy by itself (which it isn't but I'll come back to that), but it's a completely different thing depending on what games you're talking about and what specific difficulty you're having with them.

Take platformer games. It's fine to say time limits should be lengthened or the lives system should be more lenient, or hell, you get an invincibility suit after too many deaths, but that's assuming you're having difficulties either with speed or taking damage. What's to say the deaths aren't caused by that but by missing platforms, a difficult jump, not being able to find a hidden collectable.
Now we're talking about affecting things like air time, checkpoint placement, an indicator for secrets. That's a lot of work for a game that may already be acceptable to 99% of the people but apparently if anyone is unable to do anything but complete it fully ever, now we have to add to add a workaround for every possible contingency.

So now let's do racing games. Okay, so we've made your car faster and the other cars slower, but your problem was with the handling in the turns. We can't say pick a different car, or this one just controls that way (accurate to an IRL car or not) because now that's exclusionary and elitist. Fine, then we'll make it so placing 3rd out of 8 is fine too. Nope, because someone wants to be able to progress while finishing 4th. How about we just give you all the tracks but we lock a few cars away until you get gold on every race? Nope, that's now considered 'locking content away from people who are too busy to practice'.

Alright, fine. What do you want to play then? A roguelike with a bunch of unlockables? Ok, have fun playing, we made it really easy this time.
What? You didn't like the game because you didn't die, and therefore didn't see the roguelike do its thing? Okay, so we'll unlock everything on a button press. Again, not good, because now the same player is overwhelmed by all the items they can use right away.

So we'll make an RPG adventure game, open world, with really loose difficulty sliders that you can set any way you want. Well, are we now talking about having to be able to beat the boss at level 1 with starter gear? Surprise surprise, you don't appreciate when you actually get good gear if there's no challenge. But that's fine as long as you enjoyed the story. Ah but wait, we have make sure we aren't forcing you to watch cutscenes or read text either because everyone is so busy, so we'll put big obvious markers pointing to everything step by step and making every encounter beatable with any method. (Which the same people will then also bitch about).

So okay, we'll make you a puzzle game and you can actually get the solution now. There's no problem with that right? Well, except if you skip the first 20 puzzles, and then don't understand how they work, having you skip through the entire game. And remember, we can't give you incentives for doing it yourself because that's, again, exclusionary and elitist.

I hope at this point it(s clear that just shouting to have a difficulty selection isn't the solution to all of these. Now, I want to make it clear that I definitely want as many people as possible to be able to enjoy a game, and someone playing it differently than me should ideally not get less enjoyment or content out of it but there is simply no way to make a game accessible to everyone, although I really wish more was done to help control issues for people with disabilities.

In the end, you're looking at a game that has its balancing thought out to at least some degree, often already has easy modes and you're still complaining that you can't beat it the way it is. Hell, did you forget about the time when games were made easier when coming out in different regions?
This is exactly the same as grabbing a physics book and demanding someone stand there and explain every line to you while you refuse to get something more suitable or even get a basic reading comprehension (for those extremists calling people elitists for saying not every game is for everyone).

It is completely fine to play a game on easy. It is completely fine to say a game is too hard for you. It is okay to ask for an easier sequel. But one thing that is not okay is turning to people trying to explain to you that changing difficulty can and does take work that the devs may not have money and time for and reacting by stomping your feet and screaming "BUT I WANT IT!".

As for the people in the thread complaining about playtesting, these are your current choices for playtesting.

A. Have the testers that have touched and tried every inch of your game for the last year and a half or so say what is or isn't going to work, and then having to tell them that, not only are they skewed towards higher difficulty since they know the game inside and out, but also that their list of 10.000 change requests can't be done without scrapping it and starting over.
B. Get some random people off the street, who probably know nothing of games in the first place, to all have completely conflicting opinions on what should be changed, ending up with either no changes or the most watered down, designed by committee experience you can get.
C. Say fuck it and announce a public beta, E3 event or something like that and be unable to change anything that isn't bugfixes or balancing tweaks since everyone's seen the supposed final product already.

OR the sensible thing to do: You could get a let's player or someone from that game's community to come help you find out what your most probable actual core audience wants. You know, like Dark Souls, the game everyone is bitching about for being too hard and creating elitists.

Silvanus:
Stun-locking with R1 will fail against almost any reasonably-sized enemy in Bloodborne; most of them just shrug it off. Dodging, parrying and attacking also have to be differently timed and differently directed, by learning the enemies' cues and reading their movements.

If you tried to just do basic dodges and R1 the enemies to death, you wouldn't last very long in most mid-game areas, let alone late-game.

You can stun-lock just about anything in Bloodborne, even werewolves. The creatures you can't stun-lock are few and far between, and the simple and more conservative approach works; dodge their even slower and more obvious attacks (due to how big they are), go in for 2-3 hits, back away, and repeat until dead. The parry window is freaking HUGE in Bloodborne.

Ironclash:
We can pretty much axe any title where a large part of the gameplay, if not the whole focus, is Multiplayer.

For Single player games, I think it really comes down to how difficulty itself can and is implemented.

I think it's easy to say that simply scaling numbers up and down is easy by itself (which it isn't but I'll come back to that), but it's a completely different thing depending on what games you're talking about and what specific difficulty you're having with them.

Take platformer games. It's fine to say time limits should be lengthened or the lives system should be more lenient, or hell, you get an invincibility suit after too many deaths, but that's assuming you're having difficulties either with speed or taking damage. What's to say the deaths aren't caused by that but by missing platforms, a difficult jump, not being able to find a hidden collectable.

So now let's do racing games. Okay, so we've made your car faster and the other cars slower, but your problem was with the handling in the turns.

So we'll make an RPG adventure game, open world, with really loose difficulty sliders that you can set any way you want. Well, are we now talking about having to be able to beat the boss at level 1 with starter gear? Surprise surprise, you don't appreciate when you actually get good gear if there's no challenge.

I hope at this point it(s clear that just shouting to have a difficulty selection isn't the solution to all of these.

As for the people in the thread complaining about playtesting, these are your current choices for playtesting...

Multiplayer and Single Player are completely different beasts so much so that they really should be reviewed as 2 different games IMO (assuming a game has both a campaign and MP like COD). Anyway, multiplayer games should have built-in "easy modes" by offering playstyles, weapons, characters that have a low skill requirement. For example, you have shotguns in shooters that require little aiming skill. You can have support/healer playstyles that don't require great execution skills like many games have nowadays. Fighters have characters whose moves are easier to execute. Lastly, the game should utilize matchmaking that pits players of similar skill levels against each other because regardless of whether you're on the "pro" end or "newb" end of the spectrum, it's not fun playing either getting curbstomped by a party of pros or doing the curbstomping yourself. Skill levels themselves are extremely easy to implement but most devs are shit and don't even care about anything like that. They now care about purposefully making uneven teams to promote loot boxes.

It IS easy to scale damage and HP in games. Yeah, different genres are harder to make easier or harder by their nature, combat is probably the easiest and obviously most prevalent type of gameplay. It just takes simple math to alter combat difficulty. Platformers have had elements to make the games easier dating way back, does the P-Wing in SMB3 ring a bell? Racing games have had rubberband AI that works both ways for quite some time, the AI will crash a lot if you suck. Puzzle games do actually require legit playtesting to make sure players notice what the puzzle itself is and all the elements needed to solve it. You can use Portal as an educational tool for anyone making a puzzle game themselves.

RPGs are already unbalanced as fuck. You can pick one at random and I'm sure it'll be unbalanced as fuck whether we are talking Witcher 3 or Dark Souls here. Witcher 3 on Death March is easy as hell for example because CDPR doesn't understand basic game mechanics.

Here's a shocker for you; video games AREN'T playtested for balance, they are playtested for bugs. Only a dev team with a couple people that understand balancing can properly balance a game, that's why shooters after decades now can't even balance standard guns yet because the devs don't know how to balance them nor does asking the community. The fact that guns are nerfed and buffed via statistics says it all.

Phoenixmgs:

Multiplayer and Single Player are completely different beasts so much so that they really should be reviewed as 2 different games IMO (assuming a game has both a campaign and MP like COD). Anyway, multiplayer games should have built-in "easy modes" by offering playstyles, weapons, characters that have a low skill requirement. For example, you have shotguns in shooters that require little aiming skill. You can have support/healer playstyles that don't require great execution skills like many games have nowadays. Fighters have characters whose moves are easier to execute. Lastly, the game should utilize matchmaking that pits players of similar skill levels against each other because regardless of whether you're on the "pro" end or "newb" end of the spectrum, it's not fun playing either getting curbstomped by a party of pros or doing the curbstomping yourself. Skill levels themselves are extremely easy to implement but most devs are shit and don't even care about anything like that. They now care about purposefully making uneven teams to promote loot boxes.

It IS easy to scale damage and HP in games. Yeah, different genres are harder to make easier or harder by their nature, combat is probably the easiest and obviously most prevalent type of gameplay. It just takes simple math to alter combat difficulty. Platformers have had elements to make the games easier dating way back, does the P-Wing in SMB3 ring a bell? Racing games have had rubberband AI that works both ways for quite some time, the AI will crash a lot if you suck. Puzzle games do actually require legit playtesting to make sure players notice what the puzzle itself is and all the elements needed to solve it. You can use Portal as an educational tool for anyone making a puzzle game themselves.

RPGs are already unbalanced as fuck. You can pick one at random and I'm sure it'll be unbalanced as fuck whether we are talking Witcher 3 or Dark Souls here. Witcher 3 on Death March is easy as hell for example because CDPR doesn't understand basic game mechanics.

You're right, all of these have had ways to make them easier to play, but if you'll notice what you're saying, you're confirming what I said about none of these being 'simple to do'. First of all, the 'Easy scaling' doesn't exist unless the dev is already checking and double checking every freaking implementation of it. Let's pick changing a number; according to you this never triggers issues ever. Adjust a damage value and watch scripted scenes just straight up lock up because some character now didn't die the intended way or get straihgt up crashes because a characters health now exceeds the intended limits.
Just throwing a single slider around, even if it is for something as small as the range of a boss' sweep now means people have to spend a while playtesting this again.
"Does this cause any collision issues? Is this even accurate to the window. Does this affect dodge timing. Dit this create a new exploit depending on the arena shape."

Phoenixmgs:

Here's a shocker for you; video games AREN'T playtested for balance, they are playtested for bugs. Only a dev team with a couple people that understand balancing can properly balance a game, that's why shooters after decades now can't even balance standard guns yet because the devs don't know how to balance them nor does asking the community. The fact that guns are nerfed and buffed via statistics says it all.

Right, so it's not as if plenty of games have been altered greatly after E3 reveals, or entire characters and mechanics have been reworked after demo's ever, gotcha. That's why fighting games have updated versions way after release, it's because the few people in the dev team suddenly decided to rebalance it without any outside factors.

Bigger shock: It's called playtesting because it IS for player experience. That's why bugtesting tests for bugs, localisation testing is done for translation, soak testing is to check what happens on long playsessions and stress/load testing is done for server load. There's certain types of testing done by often different groups and the devs just straight up don't have a need to do it themselves when you've sometimes got 200 or more people just sitting in an office for months on end, already playing the game, while the devs are doing 70-80 hour workweeks just to hit deadlines.

And about the rebalancing for lootboxes, don't act as if you suddenly know what every dev does in every game, it's just Activision being shit as always.

Silvanus:

Phoenixmgs:

All you do is the exact same thing against every enemy in all the Souls games (embedded video cued up); dodge enemy, then hit with stick. Coming from faster paced action games, the enemies in Souls games are so obvious and slow. Bloodborne ups their speed and aggression but outside of a few enemies like the Blood-Starved Beast, Father Gascoigne, and the other hunters, most of the enemies are pretty damn tame. The proper Souls games (as in having Souls in the title) only play slower (I've only played Dark Souls and Bloodborne) and have playstyles that require almost no skill at all to succeed. Bloodborne at least forced you into playing with some skill. Though just about every enemy can be so easily stun-locked by mashing R1 with basically any weapon.

Stun-locking with R1 will fail against almost any reasonably-sized enemy in Bloodborne; most of them just shrug it off. Dodging, parrying and attacking also have to be differently timed and differently directed, by learning the enemies' cues and reading their movements.

If you tried to just do basic dodges and R1 the enemies to death, you wouldn't last very long in most mid-game areas, let alone late-game.

Not to mention in Bloodborne, at least the first half and change I've played through so far, really only requires Dodge+R1 or Parry+R1. Phoenixmgs mistakenly thinks faster-paced automatically = better across the board. I get the impression Bloodborne was made for people who don't have the patience for Souls' obtuseness and the fact that it does require far more variety, let alone encourages more in the way of experimentation.

Phoenixmgs talks about the games being full of trash mobs, yet conveniently overlooks the fact that those very mobs are exactly what make his favorite flash-filled games possible at all. His reasoning is laced with bias and hypocrisy for one reason or another, where his favorites are the clear examples of "how good games are made" and everything else is laughably overrated.

The demand for excellence and a sense of prestige is a quality in and of itself.
Exclusive items are desirable precisely because they are exclusive.

Ironclash:
You're right, all of these have had ways to make them easier to play, but if you'll notice what you're saying, you're confirming what I said about none of these being 'simple to do'. First of all, the 'Easy scaling' doesn't exist unless the dev is already checking and double checking every freaking implementation of it. Let's pick changing a number; according to you this never triggers issues ever. Adjust a damage value and watch scripted scenes just straight up lock up because some character now didn't die the intended way or get straihgt up crashes because a characters health now exceeds the intended limits.
Just throwing a single slider around, even if it is for something as small as the range of a boss' sweep now means people have to spend a while playtesting this again.
"Does this cause any collision issues? Is this even accurate to the window. Does this affect dodge timing. Dit this create a new exploit depending on the arena shape."

Right, so it's not as if plenty of games have been altered greatly after E3 reveals, or entire characters and mechanics have been reworked after demo's ever, gotcha. That's why fighting games have updated versions way after release, it's because the few people in the dev team suddenly decided to rebalance it without any outside factors.

Bigger shock: It's called playtesting because it IS for player experience. That's why bugtesting tests for bugs, localisation testing is done for translation, soak testing is to check what happens on long playsessions and stress/load testing is done for server load. There's certain types of testing done by often different groups and the devs just straight up don't have a need to do it themselves when you've sometimes got 200 or more people just sitting in an office for months on end, already playing the game, while the devs are doing 70-80 hour workweeks just to hit deadlines.

And about the rebalancing for lootboxes, don't act as if you suddenly know what every dev does in every game, it's just Activision being shit as always.

If it's a scripted scene where a character dies, you can set those HP and damage values differently for that specific scene. You can set the HP of the character that is to die to 1 so any attack kills them. Same thing with enemy attacks that one-hit kill; you can set that attack damage so high that a 20% or 50% reduction in damage easily still kills in one hit. Back in the day, you had to limit variables to a byte due to hardware limitations, which is why 255 is a limit in many older games. Now that isn't the case. Plus, games back then had logic implemented so picking your 256th potion didn't cause the game to crash and it just stayed at 255. Usually avoiding enemy attacks are due to i-frames, what game actually has legit amazingly accurate hit-boxes? Something like i-frames is just easier than doing it the hard way.

Games need balance updates because they aren't balanced well before release. A multiplayer game lives and dies on balance and how many of those are balanced on release? Probably not even one. You think single player games are going to be thoroughly balanced when MP isn't? There's only been one shooter (MGO2) that I've ever played where every single time there was a balance update, the right changes were made with regards to balance.

The whole thing about lootboxes was mainly a joke. But how many shooters well before lootboxes even have a level system based on skill? Most shooters just have a level system based on EXP earned and nothing else. You can't actually create even teams if the game has no proper way of determining player skill. The funniest thing is that implementing an accurate level system based on skill is so easy. Everyone wants competitive matches yet devs for decades ignored implementing such a simple feature that would provide that. How many shooters can't even balance standard guns (SMGs, ARs, shotguns, snipers, LMGs, etc.)? I really don't understand how that isn't something every shooter has nailed down by now especially if you think game devs take lots of time and resources to balance the game thoroughly.

hanselthecaretaker:
Not to mention in Bloodborne, at least the first half and change I've played through so far, really only requires Dodge+R1 or Parry+R1. Phoenixmgs mistakenly thinks faster-paced automatically = better across the board. I get the impression Bloodborne was made for people who don't have the patience for Souls' obtuseness and the fact that it does require far more variety, let alone encourages more in the way of experimentation.

Phoenixmgs talks about the games being full of trash mobs, yet conveniently overlooks the fact that those very mobs are exactly what make his favorite flash-filled games possible at all. His reasoning is laced with bias and hypocrisy for one reason or another, where his favorites are the clear examples of "how good games are made" and everything else is laughably overrated.

Faster-paced just means harder due to requiring better reaction time on the player's end, it doesn't necessarily mean better. So many people proclaim the Souls series to be hard games when they aren't and make claims like you have to study enemy patterns and shit; no, no you don't. This Bloodborne is Genius video is long but the guy eventually makes a lot of good points from stuff like how you actually get feedback when you hit a boss to the weapon upgrade system, that in Dark Souls you could quite easily make the weapon worse. I played Dark Souls (check my trophies if you want), I was greatly disappointed due to how the game was talked up by fans, I came in expecting a legit challenge only to find stuff as simple as strafing or a bow breaks the game. The fact that my dex-based character can use a shield that can block almost every attack including many boss attacks. Sorry, but if I put nothing into strength and an enemy is stronger than me, I shouldn't be able to block it without my stamina being completely exhausted. I struggled early on because I just assumed I couldn't block anything because my starting class was thief, thus I should be faster but also weaker in strength than my enemies. Dark Souls is hardly obtuse outside of a few head-scratchingly overly complicated mechanics like weapon upgrades. I got through Sen's Fortress literally not getting hit by a single trap because of how obvious everyone of them was if you just pay attention to the environment. Lastly, Dark Souls has more variety but don't confuse that for requiring variety onto the player.

When a game relies on challenge to be engaging and has trash mobs, then where's the engagement or fun at? If combat had depth or was at least fun, then you can have an engaging experience. There's literally nothing to "git gud" at with regards to combat in a Souls game. You said it yourself, all you have to do is dodge and hit R1 for every enemy (that never changes btw). The problem is 1) that it's not hard and 2) there's literally nothing else to do in combat. You can't even say juggle an enemy for fun's sake, the most fun to be had in Bloodborne is knocking enemies down to the ground with a heavy strike. But, then that's not even rewarded because the enemy gets i-frames to get up so what's the point? The player character doesn't even get i-frames when getting up. That even breaks the whole "fair" thing Souls is supposed to be all about, plus the hunters you face don't play by the same rules you play by. Anyway, back to the point, a game like Bayonetta has depth because you can approach combat very differently and be creative at mastering mechanics and weapons. Or even a game like Dishonored (watch any StealthGamerBR video really), the amount of creativity allowed by the game is ridiculous and that makes playing the game engaging even though the enemies there can be classified as trash mobs too. Also, Bayonetta throws enemies at you that require different strategies and mastery of mechanics to defeat. Even freaking Uncharted forces more variety of strategy on the player than a Souls game.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
It's always been about the scores. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see so many DMC4 videos on YouTube with "SSS" in the titles.

Games, most of them, are supposed to be challenging. Bayonetta fails because it's so concerned with you looking cool. Normal mode is a breeze. It doesn't even let you play higher difficulties until you've beaten the game.

Dragon's Dogma isn't very good. Very generic. Bland level design. Trashy story. Horrible dialogue. A creepy slave pawn system. Shallow combat. I'll let my homeboy or whatever you call him explain it.

3/5 at best. Souls is a 4.

If it's always been about the scores, then why don't all games with leaderboards or some type of scoring system have near the amount of combo videos as Platinum's games?

I'm not into those kinds of games, so I wouldn't know if you're making a valid point or talking out of your ass. I do know that the Arkham games have leaderboards and a lot of combo videos whose titles include the combo multipliers and scores.

Getting top ranks doesn't mean that much besides for being relatively fast, taking no damage, and varying up combos (not just doing the same thing over again). Combos videos are watched just for the sheer skill and creativity, not to see someone get the highest rank, much like say StealthGamerBR Dishonored video. Bayonetta is easy? Yet you have said you used "cheap" items while you complained about not being able to read the enemies' animations. You wouldn't be able to play higher than Normal if you don't know how to dodge offset. The game is meant to be beat if that's all you want to do but even normal is trying to teach the game with Jeane fights and I believe one Gracious and Glorious fight.

Hilarious as Vanquish gets a big shout-out in that video. Plus, they both liked Dragon's Dogma and loved aspects of it. The game is all about the beast fights, which still set the bar as the best. DD's Hydra and Griffin fights put stuff like Dark Souls' Hydra and Witcher 3's Griffin to shame. And, DD is actual FUN to play. Sure a bunch of other stuff is shit. The night/day cycle in DD is something else that is really well done. It's like the opposite of Witcher 3 (good writing/shit gameplay), and I'd rather have a fun game than a well written one if I had to choose between the two.

You don't get it. I posted that video to sort of explain where I'm coming from with the story being bad, the presentation being bad, the pawn system being creepy, etc. Not because I agree with everything they said. I don't like Vanquish, but I can still respect the opinion of someone who does, like him.

Cheap items? I just used the items that were available to me. I guess what I'm saying is that Bayonetta is easy because it's so forgiving (and because the enemies mostly just stand around so that you can perform your flashy combos). Hard mode is another matter. I still don't feel like replaying it. It wasn't very entertaining. Dark Souls is better. Playing Nioh just reminds me that having intricate environments to explore makes a hack and slash a lot more interesting than just going from one empty, open, closed off arena to another.

Also, Devil May Cry 3 is STILL better than anything Platinum Games has shit out, because it doesn't have so many long fucking cutscenes, because the atmosphere is stronger, because the story and cutscenes are better, because the bosses are more pure (lacking shitty QTEs and weird cutscene and setpiece transitions), because it has better environments, because the enemies don't wait their turn if they're not in the picture (like in Bayonetta) but instead let you know they are going to attack with audio ques, because it doesn't have retarded exploits like the time-freezing cutting and harvesting system from MGR, because it doesn't have shitty overlong vehicle sequences (like the motorcycle in Bayonetta, and the longass shoot 'em up section in which you can't even see in front of your huge avatar, or the tedious moving platform parts in Vanquish) and other boring distractions....

PG has good ideas, but they always screw it up. Some of the animations in Bayonetta are too fast for me, yes, but there is so much else that I dislike about PG. It's sad that they are leading the hack and slash genre right now.

Phoenixmgs:

If it's a scripted scene where a character dies, you can set those HP and damage values differently for that specific scene. You can set the HP of the character that is to die to 1 so any attack kills them. Same thing with enemy attacks that one-hit kill; you can set that attack damage so high that a 20% or 50% reduction in damage easily still kills in one hit. Back in the day, you had to limit variables to a byte due to hardware limitations, which is why 255 is a limit in many older games. Now that isn't the case. Plus, games back then had logic implemented so picking your 256th potion didn't cause the game to crash and it just stayed at 255. Usually avoiding enemy attacks are due to i-frames, what game actually has legit amazingly accurate hit-boxes? Something like i-frames is just easier than doing it the hard way.

Except you're missing the point entirely where I said either the variables have to be set up where this is expected to be possible and not break stuff, or it needs to be tested after implementing it. Let's say you're doing a sidequest where you can give your quest escort better armor to help them survive a certain boss' attack in a scripted scene. Unless you made the boss damage a straight number, independent of other factors, you're now going to have to check if this attack is even survivable on higher difficulties depending on level scaling and other factors, and not by just looking at the numbers in code.
There's a big disconnect here between how it should theoretically work and how it's actually implemented. The same way how rubber band AI might actually be detrimental to players who manage to get several perfect turns only to have the AI controlled cars suddenly zip past them at a speed the player themselves can't reach.
Adding difficulty modifyers of any type takes some consideration any way you spin it.

For a decent example, the Heaven or Hell difficulty in the DMC games is actually laughably easy apart from the odd trap room or spammy boss but it's still considered a higher difficulty because you need to know how to dodge properly.

Phoenixmgs:

The funniest thing is that implementing an accurate level system based on skill is so easy. Everyone wants competitive matches yet devs for decades ignored implementing such a simple feature that would provide that. How many shooters can't even balance standard guns (SMGs, ARs, shotguns, snipers, LMGs, etc.)? I really don't understand how that isn't something every shooter has nailed down by now especially if you think game devs take lots of time and resources to balance the game thoroughly.

Okay, maybe you can explain what you're actually talking about because depending on who i'm talking to, a gun that simply does more damage than a different one can already be labelled 'unbalanced'. As for making teams of similar level, haven't we had ranks depending on win rate since like forever? I mean, unless we want to go to pre-Counterstrike times.

Now, I'm not going to say every dev is perfect when it comes to balance in every game. Hell, I pick on Blizzard for reworking and rolling back characters and mechanics all the time, and EA has a bad habit of straight up selling the same weapon with better stats, but the way you're presenting this it's as if every single game is just horribly broken balance wise. Apart from legit exploits or bugs, I don't really see any games where some content is effectively useless. For some of the games that do have 'worse' items or gear, especially shooters, unlocking something that's even slightly less shitty is half of the reason people who like unlocking content play it in the first place.
Barring card games of course, every update there may as well be a full reset.

Phoenixmgs:

You can stun-lock just about anything in Bloodborne, even werewolves. The creatures you can't stun-lock are few and far between, and the simple and more conservative approach works; dodge their even slower and more obvious attacks (due to how big they are), go in for 2-3 hits, back away, and repeat until dead. The parry window is freaking HUGE in Bloodborne.

You can stunlock werewolves, yes, but werewolves are pretty basic enemies. It won't help you a bit against kidnappers, any of the giants, bloodlickers, pretty much anything in the nightmare frontier, even mid-level enemies like the clergymen.

Yes, you dodge, parry and attack-- but the timings differ for each enemy, as well as where is safe to dodge, how quickly they move, what they're weak to, etcetera. Saying you just dodge and attack is like saying you just jump in any Mario game. Well, yes, but the context changes massively.

Naqel:
The demand for excellence and a sense of prestige is a quality in and of itself.

This is the point I was trying to make with the sports/coach/player analogy. Many people like games that demand/force you to learn to play by offering no easy out. It is a valuable quality for a game to have, and not something that can be easily dismissed as irrelevant. Take that quality away, and it certainly affects the game in a negative way for some people.

Naqel:
Exclusive items are desirable precisely because they are exclusive.

And I agree with this, too. In my opinion, it's not so much wanting the exclusive item that drives people to complain about it. If they really wanted it so bad, they would put in more effort to get it. It's the fact that someone else has something that they don't have. So they don't necessarily want the item so much as they just don't want the other person to have something exclusive and they don't want him/her to be able to feel pride in that. It's petty jealousy at its core.

Not to get all biblical, but it reminds me of that King Solomon story about the baby. One lady is totally fine with the baby getting cut into two pieces. Which reveals her true motivation, jealousy that the other lady has a baby and she doesn't.

Kerg3927:
The Souls series is owned by FromSoftware. If they wanted to remove it from the market today, they could. If they wanted to rename it Gooseberry Doo Doo Head, they could. If someone demands that the name be changed to Light Souls, they don't have to do that. The point is change. They don't have to change it in any way if they don't want to.

Your latter point is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it affects certain people, at all. It doesn't matter if your argument for a change is a good one or not. It only matters that FromSoftware doesn't have to change it if they don't want to.

Which again, is irrelevant, because the fact remains that if the seller doesn't want to paint the walls blue to appease that particular customer, he doesn't have to. He has every right to keep the walls red and sell to someone else who likes red walls.

Once again, you have no real right to argue about "developer's choice" when you will only defend it if they're choosing to do it your way. It is indeed their right to change as they see fit, so why would you object to them changing it to add an easy mode? Your argument here is "A developer has the right to make a game however they want...oh they added an easy mode? They're dumbing down! They're just giving in to the whiners!" Its hypocrisy to only defend choice only if that choice favours you.

Kerg3927:
There you go misrepresenting me again. I didn't say that. Here's the exact quote...

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Instead, here you are trying to insist that adding easy modes is somehow inferior...

Hidetaka Miyazaki is the one who decided that including an easy mode in Dark Souls would be "inferior." Not me. He decided not to do it.

"Decided" not said. It's obvious to me that Miyazaki and FromSoftware decided not to include an easy mode because it doesn't have one. Which means they thought it was the superior choice and a different choice would have been inferior. By the way, if you are confusing the quotation marks around inferior in that post, I'm quoting you there, not Miyazaki.

Except I only use the term inferior because its one you had been using. That was in fact the attitude I am demanding you defend. So by referring back to your own words, mentioning they come from Miyazaki and adding quotes you are in fact implying they are his words. Either you were trying to pass it off as a quote and backtrack or you simply worded your sentence very poorly.

Kerg3927:
I explained it to you.

No, in fact, you did not. Hence me needing to ask you twice (three times now) and adding in the explanation that you not liking something does not mean it is wrong. Try again, with actual answers this time please.

Kerg3927:
My motivation is irrelevant. If I say, "The sky is blue," and you respond with, "But you're only saying that because you're an asshole," that's not you countering my argument. That's you avoiding it.

I explain pretty thoroughly the reasons you're wrong. You being an asshole is just an added facet. Go back and read my posts again, properly this time, then come back when you have an actual adult response.

Kerg3927:
Fine. Everything else you typed leading up to this statement and after it is all rambling nonsense, and so stupid or ignorant that it's not worth responding to. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just posting the sentence above and calling it a day.

No, because then I'm doing what you're doing and simply trying to insist a thing is true with no evidence, logic or reasoning. If I have a point that point needs to be backed up. For example, the fact that you're trying to dismiss everything I say as nonsense without even mentioning which parts are nonsense let alone detailing how only tells me that you don't actually have any comeback. Either you don't have anything to refute my points, or maybe you're even starting to see I'm right.

Kerg3927:

This is the point I was trying to make with the sports/coach/player analogy. Many people like games that demand/force you to learn to play by offering no easy out. It is a valuable quality for a game to have, and not something that can be easily dismissed as irrelevant. Take that quality away, and it certainly affects the game in a negative way for some people.

In what way does adding an easy mode take away the value of completing the game on hard? Completing the game on hard will still be, surprise, hard, your victories are not cheapened in any way.

Kerg3927:
And I agree with this, too. In my opinion, it's not so much wanting the exclusive item that drives people to complain about it. If they really wanted it so bad, they would put in more effort to get it. It's the fact that someone else has something that they don't have. So they don't necessarily want the item so much as they just don't want the other person to have something exclusive and they don't want him/her to be able to feel pride in that. It's petty jealousy at its core.

Not to get all biblical, but it reminds me of that King Solomon story about the baby. One lady is totally fine with the baby getting cut into two pieces. Which reveals her true motivation, jealousy that the other lady has a baby and she doesn't.

"Not wanting someone else to have something exclusive" pretty effectively sums up your viewpoint there buddy. Starting to realise your "No! You can't have this! Its mine!" thinking is maybe propelled by selfish motives?

Skipping over the nonsense...

Pallindromemordnillap:
It is indeed their right to change as they see fit...

Which logically also means it is their right to not change it.

Pallindromemordnillap:
... you simply worded your sentence very poorly.

If the quote wasn't clear, I apologize. I didn't think you would be so desperate as to try to win the argument based upon a quotation mark ambiguity, but I clarified it. If you can't accept that, whatever.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
I explained it to you.

No, in [my opinion], you did not.

Fixed it for you. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I didn't explain it. Take it or leave it. You are not entitled to anything more.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I explain pretty thoroughly the reasons [I think] you're wrong.

Fixed it for you again. Yes, you did give me your explanation, and in my opinion it's all nonsense.

Pallindromemordnillap:
No, because then I'm doing what you're doing and simply trying to insist a thing is true with no evidence, logic or reasoning.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
This is the point I was trying to make with the sports/coach/player analogy. Many people like games that demand/force you to learn to play by offering no easy out. It is a valuable quality for a game to have, and not something that can be easily dismissed as irrelevant. Take that quality away, and it certainly affects the game in a negative way for some people.

In what way does adding an easy mode take away the value of completing the game on hard? Completing the game on hard will still be, surprise, hard, your victories are not cheapened in any way.

I'm telling you I feel that way, and that there are many others who feel that way, particularly in the Souls community. Just because you don't understand someone's opinion, doesn't make it wrong. It just means that you don't understand their opinion. It happens. Get over it.

Pallindromemordnillap:
"Not wanting someone else to have something exclusive" pretty effectively sums up your viewpoint there buddy. Starting to realise your "No! You can't have this! Its mine!" thinking is maybe propelled by selfish motives?

You think exclusivity is a bad thing no matter what. I think earned exclusivity is a good thing, not just for me, but for anyone who wants to put in the effort to earn it. Further, I think people whining about others having earned exclusivity is weak and embarrassing. I feel sorry for them, and would love to lead them into the light. I've tried and failed to lead you into the light, and for that, I am truly sorry. I did all I could.

Ezekiel:
I'm not into those kinds of games, so I wouldn't know if you're making a valid point or talking out of your ass. I do know that the Arkham games have leaderboards and a lot of combo videos whose titles include the combo multipliers and scores.

You don't get it. I posted that video to sort of explain where I'm coming from with the story being bad, the presentation being bad, the pawn system being creepy, etc. Not because I agree with everything they said. I don't like Vanquish, but I can still respect the opinion of someone who does, like him.

Cheap items? I just used the items that were available to me. I guess what I'm saying is that Bayonetta is easy because it's so forgiving (and because the enemies mostly just stand around so that you can perform your flashy combos). Hard mode is another matter. I still don't feel like replaying it. It wasn't very entertaining. Dark Souls is better. Playing Nioh just reminds me that having intricate environments to explore makes a hack and slash a lot more interesting than just going from one empty, open, closed off arena to another.

Also, Devil May Cry 3 is STILL better than anything Platinum Games has shit out, because it doesn't have so many long fucking cutscenes, because the atmosphere is stronger, because the story and cutscenes are better, because the bosses are more pure (lacking shitty QTEs and weird cutscene and setpiece transitions), because it has better environments, because the enemies don't wait their turn if they're not in the picture (like in Bayonetta) but instead let you know they are going to attack with audio ques, because it doesn't have retarded exploits like the time-freezing cutting and harvesting system from MGR, because it doesn't have shitty overlong vehicle sequences (like the motorcycle in Bayonetta, and the longass shoot 'em up section in which you can't even see in front of your huge avatar, or the tedious moving platform parts in Vanquish) and other boring distractions....

PG has good ideas, but they always screw it up. Some of the animations in Bayonetta are too fast for me, yes, but there is so much else that I dislike about PG. It's sad that they are leading the hack and slash genre right now.

Just Youtube search "Bayonetta combo video" and let me know how long of a scroll it takes to see "Pure Platinum" or any kind of score in the title. The problem with Souls for me is there's nothing to get better at / hone your skills and there's nothing about the gameplay that is actually fun (outside of a good boss fight here and there). Even though Bayonetta was the 1st spectacle fighter I ever played, I had the goal of learning the game by getting through every level without needing items to help me. I understood they were options to make the game easier and choose not to use those options, which is sorta the whole point of this thread (having easier options doesn't ruin games). I even practiced dodge offsetting in the very 1st level the same way I practiced the riposte in the Undead Burg of Dark Souls. And, the huge difference between the 2 games is that Bayonetta requires one to "git gud" at dodge offsetting to be good at the game while doing the riposte in Dark Souls is never worth the risk and thus not worth even learning.

You do realize the guys at Platinum literally invented the spectacle fighter genre, right?

I did "get it". All I basically said was that I prefer a game that does something exceptional than a game that just does everything well. I want genuinely new experiences or something that raises a bar, and Dragon's Dogma accomplished that.

Ironclash:
Except you're missing the point entirely where I said either the variables have to be set up where this is expected to be possible and not break stuff, or it needs to be tested after implementing it. Let's say you're doing a sidequest where you can give your quest escort better armor to help them survive a certain boss' attack in a scripted scene. Unless you made the boss damage a straight number, independent of other factors, you're now going to have to check if this attack is even survivable on higher difficulties depending on level scaling and other factors, and not by just looking at the numbers in code.
There's a big disconnect here between how it should theoretically work and how it's actually implemented. The same way how rubber band AI might actually be detrimental to players who manage to get several perfect turns only to have the AI controlled cars suddenly zip past them at a speed the player themselves can't reach.
Adding difficulty modifyers of any type takes some consideration any way you spin it.

For a decent example, the Heaven or Hell difficulty in the DMC games is actually laughably easy apart from the odd trap room or spammy boss but it's still considered a higher difficulty because you need to know how to dodge properly.

Okay, maybe you can explain what you're actually talking about because depending on who i'm talking to, a gun that simply does more damage than a different one can already be labelled 'unbalanced'. As for making teams of similar level, haven't we had ranks depending on win rate since like forever? I mean, unless we want to go to pre-Counterstrike times.

Now, I'm not going to say every dev is perfect when it comes to balance in every game. Hell, I pick on Blizzard for reworking and rolling back characters and mechanics all the time, and EA has a bad habit of straight up selling the same weapon with better stats, but the way you're presenting this it's as if every single game is just horribly broken balance wise. Apart from legit exploits or bugs, I don't really see any games where some content is effectively useless. For some of the games that do have 'worse' items or gear, especially shooters, unlocking something that's even slightly less shitty is half of the reason people who like unlocking content play it in the first place.
Barring card games of course, every update there may as well be a full reset.

You can change a lot globally and with basically no time but I'm sure every game probably has an exception here or there where you do have to test such and such section by actually playing it due to it being a different situation than like 90+% of the core gameplay. And, I haven't played a satisfying racer since Midnight Club 2 due to rubberband AI basically making it feel pointless to actually race well. But, that's an AI issue mainly vs a difficulty level issue IMO.

If a gun does more damage, it doesn't mean its overpowered. Say the game has 3 different assault rifles; the base one, one with lower recoil, one with higher recoil. The higher recoil one should kill in one bullet less than the base one while the lower recoil one kills in one bullet more than the base one. If a gun has more recoil but doesn't have more power, it's obviously inferior. The guns that require more skill should have a lower time-to-kill. For example a semi-auto gun should kill in less time because there's less margin of error than an automatic. Why would anyone use a semi-auto gun if the automatic alternative kills in the same amount of time (assuming all shots are hits obviously)? Medal of Honor Warfighter probably had the best gun balance of any last-gen FPS. Every gun should be useful for an intended playstyle, no gun should be objectively just better. There's just so much off about balance in almost every shooter if you really get into the game. For example, Ghost Recon Future Soldier has reloading and switching to your secondary take the same amount of time so pistols are useless; you either use a stun gun (to stun and get hacks) or noobtube as your secondary because pistols are useless. The game also has all assault rifles kill in 2 shots so the lowest recoil one is obviously the best one.

I'm mainly talking about shooters COD4 and after. How many of them actually have a way to rate players based on skill?

Silvanus:
You can stunlock werewolves, yes, but werewolves are pretty basic enemies. It won't help you a bit against kidnappers, any of the giants, bloodlickers, pretty much anything in the nightmare frontier, even mid-level enemies like the clergymen.

Yes, you dodge, parry and attack-- but the timings differ for each enemy, as well as where is safe to dodge, how quickly they move, what they're weak to, etcetera. Saying you just dodge and attack is like saying you just jump in any Mario game. Well, yes, but the context changes massively.

I think the brain enemies are like the only normal enemies that require doing really anything different from the player. You, like many Souls players greatly exaggerate what is required of the player. Every enemy is weak to whatever weapon you're carrying, enemy resistances/strengths aren't important at all to the game (outside of an occasional boss) as you're literally expected to pick one weapon and only use that for basically the whole game; Bloodborne is a bit more generous with upgrade resources and the fact that the weapons aren't as stat dependent as Souls games. There's not much timing to dodging either, press dodge when you see an attack animation, that's basically it. Positioning means nothing in a Souls game or any combat game where it's mainly about dodging because the dodge works because of i-frames, not because of you're actually moving your character away from said attack. Even if you do dodge into a corner or something, dodge away from there (going through whatever attack due to i-frames) and you're fine.

Phoenixmgs:
And, the huge difference between the 2 games is that Bayonetta requires one to "git gud" at dodge offsetting to be good at the game while doing the riposte in Dark Souls is never worth the risk and thus not worth even learning.

That's it? The riposte system? I never use it. I get his point. The people who claim getting good at Dark Souls is about learning the riposte are weird. But to reduce the argument against Dark Souls to just the riposte system and sort of claim Bayonetta is better because of that is lame.

When it comes to fast reflexes and memorizing movesets, I'd personally rather play a fighting game like MK or Tekken than anything from Platinum Games. They may have deep combat but I just don't care, as everything else about them is either too bland or silly to pull me in. I was mildly entertained by the demos of Bayonetta and MGR. They didn't compel me to play the full game like Demon's Souls did. I play games for more than spastic button combinations and split-second timing. I appreciate attention to detail in everything from immersive worlds, interesting NPCs, music, lore, environments, technical things like physics systems, etc.

I took to the Souls series because it didn't feel like anything else out at the time, and largely still today. The first time playing Demon's Souls I remember it being refreshingly simple, yet every action felt more significant and deliberate. Its physics system implemented weight like it actually took effort to swing a weapon, and doing so had some type of consequence. Some projectiles can be spammed, but as doing so is optional that's as much a reflection on the player as the game itself. Most games have elements that can be spammed or cheesed.

Where Souls differentiates itself is it teaches the player to carefully consider their approach, and actually appreciate that death is a consequential game system in itself. You want to survive, and not merely spam continues in a breathy haste over cheesy boss fights or cheap platforming sections. The very act of progressing through the game and sense of discovery is where the satisfaction comes from, not how many outlandish combos or bonus kill points you get for whatever special move. If people don't understand that, then it's simply not their kind of game. Why Souls is being compared to hack and slash in the first place is preposterous when they're both designed to accomplish very different things. The respective recognition of what they each accomplish speaks for itself.

Kerg3927:
Not to get all biblical, but it reminds me of that King Solomon story about the baby. One lady is totally fine with the baby getting cut into two pieces. Which reveals her true motivation, jealousy that the other lady has a baby and she doesn't.

The bible is a pretty smart book, even if you don't follow the faith.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 15 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