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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Kerg3927:
Skipping over the nonsense...

Continuing to pick and choose what you respond to doesn't exactly strengthen your argument, especially as your reasons for doing so are arbitrary and unsupported.

Kerg3927:
Which logically also means it is their right to not change it.

A point I've never disputed. My point has always been that you using that argument is hypocrisy, and that your habit of trying to shut down any discussion of the topic by labelling people who'd prefer the change as entitled is a total dick move.

Kerg3927:
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.

You used quotation marks directly after referring to a person, how on earth did you think I was going to assume the quotation marks were meant to indicate me and not the person?

Kerg3927:
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.

I asked for solid evidence of me misrepresenting you. You simply told me to "See above", directing me to an argument that had nothing to do with misrepresentation. This isn't a matter of me thinking anything or not understanding anything, you have just not provided any clear answers. Please do so. Where was I misrepresenting you? What strawman did I set up? What words did I put in your mouth?

Kerg3927:
Fixed it for you again. Yes, you did give me your explanation, and in my opinion it's all nonsense.

An opinion you base on what, exactly? I've backed up what I said with previous quotes, with explanations on what you're doing wrong and with better solutions of need be. You're resorting to hurling out claims you apparently outright refuse to substantiate. Your reaction to being called out on your behaviour is increasingly turning into a child's response of putting his fingers in his ears going "lalalala can't hear you!"

Kerg3927:

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.

Right so you decide my claims that you aren't providing proof or reasoning to be complete hyperbole and tell me so...in a post that has absolutely no proof or reasoning to back it up, thus proving my point. I hope others can see the irony in that even if you missed it

Kerg3927:
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.

If I don't understand it, explain it to me. Why do you feel adding an easy mode cheapens your victories on hard? What is this opinion based on other than your own ego feeling, somehow, dented by the accomplishments of others?

Kerg3927:
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.

I don't much care for exclusivity, true, and I care even less about people using that exclusivity as a means of trying to insist that they are somehow superior and that no-one else should even get a chance. I feel sorry for you too, that you have such insecurity and low self-worth that you need to cling to this one game in order to feel good about yourself, and need to degrade anyone who doesn't play it to your arbitrary standard so you can still feel big

Ezekiel:
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.

What I'm saying is that Souls has no gameplay mechanic to work on, to get better at, to master. The riposte mechanic is the only thing that would fit the bill, but it's almost always never worth the risk and is usually the inferior option. To me, that's poor game design when the reward doesn't justify the risk of even using a mechanic. If you wanna look at a game more similar to Souls, I'll use Nioh (which I only did play the demo) as an example. With Nioh, you can work at getting better with the ki pulse along with mixing and matching between the different stances. I'm guessing Nioh becomes such a better game once you get a good grasp of utilizing both of those mechanics to really start wrecking enemies much like Bayonetta feels like a completely different game once you learn how to effectively dodge offset. The Souls games don't have that depth to them, which is my problem with them. I "got" Dark Souls after a couple hours and there was nothing else left to get with regards to what the gameplay is offering.

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

Firstly, Souls is basically just a slower-paced hack and slash really. Secondly, I'm comparing mechanics and what they accomplish and not necessary games. Bayonetta's dodge offset or Nioh's ki pulse / stances provide depth to the combat whereas there's no mechanic to Souls combat that provides that depth. Mainly what I said just above to Ezekiel in that I'm never really honing my skills in a Souls game because there's really nothing to master from a mechanics standpoint. Also, the Souls games don't really allow for much creativity within the combat either. Sure you have options in using a shield or magic but those are things that lower the already low skill level of the combat and basically feel like cheats or exploits. Lastly, my point that games with combat (regardless of genre; melee, shooter, etc.) should have enemies that force different approaches and strategies, which Souls does not. The dodge offset in Bayonetta would be pointless if there were no enemies that required it or it was the inferior option (like the riposte).

Basically, the gameplay in a Souls game to me is just the "means" to an end when the gameplay should be the "end".

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Which logically also means it is their right to not change it.

A point I've never disputed.

Thank you. After 11 pages of trying to get you to answer that question, with you dancing, diverting, and weaseling around it, I finally got a half-assed concession on that point at least. It's a small victory, but I'll take it.

The rest is 100% subjective opinion about game design preference, with you sniveling around trying to make it into something more than that. I have tried to explain my opinion to you, and you refuse to accept it as valid. You somehow think I have to prove my opinion to you. No, I don't. I don't have to do shit. It's my opinion.

My conclusion is that we couldn't be on further opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to what we value in games and probably in life, so no amount of explaining is going to get you to understand my point of view, and thus continued discussion is entirely pointless.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
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.

What I'm saying is that Souls has no gameplay mechanic to work on, to get better at, to master.

/you're a funny guy pic

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
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.

What I'm saying is that Souls has no gameplay mechanic to work on, to get better at, to master.

/you're a funny guy pic

You seem to have issues with any game that has depth to it and complain about it whether it's Bayo/Vanquish or now Nioh in that other thread. Bayonetta's telegraphing animations are so bad according to you yet there's a video analyzing how amazing they are...

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

What I'm saying is that Souls has no gameplay mechanic to work on, to get better at, to master.

/you're a funny guy pic

You seem to have issues with any game that has depth to it and complain about it whether it's Bayo/Vanquish or now Nioh in that other thread.

Nioh is good. I'm enjoying it. I said so. It has proper level design and exploration, which PG is bad at.

Bayonetta's telegraphing animations are so bad according to you yet there's a video analyzing how amazing they are...

I said that some of them are too fast FOR ME.

It doesn't help that you're deciding what has depth and calling everything else that doesn't fit your taste shallow or bad. Nothing to learn and get better at in Dark Souls? Please.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

Firstly, Souls is basically just a slower-paced hack and slash really. Secondly, I'm comparing mechanics and what they accomplish and not necessary games. Bayonetta's dodge offset or Nioh's ki pulse / stances provide depth to the combat whereas there's no mechanic to Souls combat that provides that depth. Mainly what I said just above to Ezekiel in that I'm never really honing my skills in a Souls game because there's really nothing to master from a mechanics standpoint. Also, the Souls games don't really allow for much creativity within the combat either. Sure you have options in using a shield or magic but those are things that lower the already low skill level of the combat and basically feel like cheats or exploits. Lastly, my point that games with combat (regardless of genre; melee, shooter, etc.) should have enemies that force different approaches and strategies, which Souls does not. The dodge offset in Bayonetta would be pointless if there were no enemies that required it or it was the inferior option (like the riposte).

Basically, the gameplay in a Souls game to me is just the "means" to an end when the gameplay should be the "end".

I wouldn't generalize that much to say it's like a "slower-paced hack n slash". Maybe that's the problem you have with it is you seem to want it to be, or at least have no problem comparing it to them.

Here's a guy who apparently plays nothing but strict timing, flashy button combo-heavy games like SSF2T yet he still understands the differences. Furthermore, he relishes them.

Point being, it's not that the depth isn't there, but that it's presented completely differently than the games you're fond of. It's almost like comparing an anime movie's fight scenes to rock climbing. No one's saying the game's aren't flawed either, or that they can't be exploited. Most games can even on their highest difficulty. With Souls you create your own difficulty levels through how you choose to play. Nothing is segregated or spelled out with a tidy bow on top, and I think that leads people to easily misread and ultimately misjudge them. I could go through Bayonetta on normal spamming my way through most of the game and say it's a button mashing mess, but of course you'd jump in to say well that's because you chose to play it that way.

hanselthecaretaker:
I wouldn?t generalize that much to say it?s like a ?slower-paced hack n slash?. Maybe that?s the problem you have with it is you seem to want it to be, or at least have no problem comparing it to them.

Here?s a guy who apparently plays nothing but strict timing, flashy button combo-heavy games like SSF2T yet he still understands the differences. Furthermore, he relishes them.

Point being, it?s not that the depth isn?t there, but that it?s presented completely differently than the games you?re fond of. It?s almost like comparing an anime movie?s fight scenes to rock climbing. No one?s saying the game?s aren?t flawed either, or that they can?t be exploited. Most games can even on their highest difficulty. With Souls you create your own difficulty levels through how you choose to play. Nothing is segregated or spelled out with a tidy bow on top, and I think that leads people to easily misread and ultimately misjudge them. I could go through Bayonetta on normal spamming my way through most of the game and say it?s a button mashing mess, but of course you?d jump in to say well that?s because you chose to play it that way.

Any game where you primarily kill enemies with an action combat system with melee weapons is a hack and slash. The only reason Souls' games may not technically be hack and slashers is because you can use magic. The problem is that the most depth Souls ever gets up to is "dodge then hit with stick". It literally never goes beyond that; let me know when the game ever requires more than that out of a player because I haven't seen it over Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne. I saw more depth in playing the demo for Nioh over the course of like 20 minutes or so. All those elements highlighted in the article are present in most combat games and are usually done better. The problem with the Souls' "playstyles" like being a mage is that you can't be a mage while getting a challenging experience because of how unbalanced the game is. There's only a single way to play (aka Bloodborne style) if you want any semblance of a challenge.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
I wouldn?t generalize that much to say it?s like a ?slower-paced hack n slash?. Maybe that?s the problem you have with it is you seem to want it to be, or at least have no problem comparing it to them.

Here?s a guy who apparently plays nothing but strict timing, flashy button combo-heavy games like SSF2T yet he still understands the differences. Furthermore, he relishes them.

Point being, it?s not that the depth isn?t there, but that it?s presented completely differently than the games you?re fond of. It?s almost like comparing an anime movie?s fight scenes to rock climbing. No one?s saying the game?s aren?t flawed either, or that they can?t be exploited. Most games can even on their highest difficulty. With Souls you create your own difficulty levels through how you choose to play. Nothing is segregated or spelled out with a tidy bow on top, and I think that leads people to easily misread and ultimately misjudge them. I could go through Bayonetta on normal spamming my way through most of the game and say it?s a button mashing mess, but of course you?d jump in to say well that?s because you chose to play it that way.

Any game where you primarily kill enemies with an action combat system with melee weapons is a hack and slash. The only reason Souls' games may not technically be hack and slashers is because you can use magic. The problem is that the most depth Souls ever gets up to is "dodge then hit with stick". It literally never goes beyond that; let me know when the game ever requires more than that out of a player because I haven't seen it over Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne. I saw more depth in playing the demo for Nioh over the course of like 20 minutes or so. All those elements highlighted in the article are present in most combat games and are usually done better. The problem with the Souls' "playstyles" like being a mage is that you can't be a mage while getting a challenging experience because of how unbalanced the game is. There's only a single way to play (aka Bloodborne style) if you want any semblance of a challenge.

By those loose terms Bayonetta might as well be a role playing game, since you upgrade stuff. Maybe it's also a tps since like DMC guns are ironically your signature weapons even though they're also typically the weakest. Or perhaps it shouldn't even be called hack n slash either since it also uses magic, etc.

It's hypocritical to be so specific when criticizing a game's combat system but so general in describing its design or genre. It simply doesn't work that way. It's also hypocritical to call a game with as many options, play styles and overal variety as the Souls series shallow and unbalanced, while praising games where there's really only one way to play, if you're "playing it correctly"; ei as the developers intended. It's exactly how to describe something like Bayonetta or Vanquish, where you're either spamming your way through on Normal or playing it properly like you've been explaining in so many threads.

Lastly, I don't think I could - or more specifically would really want to - play Souls as anything other than a melee build with some projectile/pyro support, because I've tried respec'ing a high level character in DS2 by dumping everything into Sorcery and Miracles, upgrading a good catalyst/chime only to do less than half my normal damage against what you'd call "trash mob" enemies. Then you have to consider resource management and casting speed which is usually much slower than a good sword. Then also consider the range and type of spell that works best for what kind of environment you're in, or what enemies are present.

So no, it's not easier, and melee isn't the only challenging way to play. It's simply a more straightforward type of challenge. I could probably come up with a good casting build if I researched it enough or copied someone else's, but I still wouldn't have the tactile feedback I get with a melee strength/dex build, which is more satisfying to me in a Souls game.

Phoenixmgs:
The problem is that the most depth Souls ever gets up to is "dodge then hit with stick".

I haven't followed every detail of this conversation, but IMO, Dark Souls is trying to emulate a more or less realistic medieval combat feel. Of course, the constant rolling is not very realistic, but the overall premise of dodge/block, look for an opening and punish is what real melee combat has always been about. I think Souls intentionally doesn't have flashy animated special moves like say WoW or Diablo 3. It's just you, your weapon, and the enemy. Block or dodge with timing, then strike at the opening. Its carnal simplicity is not a lack of "depth." It's beautiful.

When William Wallace charged into battle in Braveheart, did he look down at his action bar and carefully manage his cooldowns and resources while going through a rotation of animated abilities like Rampage, Bloodthirst, Raging Blow, Furious Slash, and Execute? No, he simply dodged attacks and swung his sword.

Personally, I see this video as him responding to toys being thrown about with toys being thrown about. Honestly, the whole commentocracy thing starting is what drove me away from Jim's videos recently. I mean, I'd understand if he sat down and discussed the problem properly, acknowledging that the sites who're trying to tear into Cuphead because he's a "games journalist" - a title that's quickly losing its meaning in todays world - and people are aiming their rifles not only at polygon but all games journalists recently because of it.

This opinion's probably already been voiced in this thread somewhere already though.

hanselthecaretaker:
By those loose terms Bayonetta might as well be a role playing game, since you upgrade stuff. Maybe it?s also a tps since like DMC guns are ironically your signature weapons even though they?re also typically the weakest. Or perhaps it shouldn?t even be called hack n slash either since it also uses magic, etc.

It?s hypocritical to be so specific when criticizing a game?s combat system but so general in describing its design or genre. It simply doesn?t work that way. It?s also hypocritical to call a game with as many options, play styles and overal variety as the Souls series shallow and unbalanced, while praising games where there?s really only one way to play, if you?re ?playing it correctly?; ei as the developers intended. It?s exactly how to describe something like Bayonetta or Vanquish, where you?re either spamming your way through on Normal or playing it properly like you?ve been explaining in so many threads.

Lastly, I don?t think I could - or more specifically would really want to - play Souls as anything other than a melee build with some projectile/pyro support, because I?ve tried respec?ing a high level character in DS2 by dumping everything into Sorcery and Miracles, upgrading a good catalyst/chime only to do less than half my normal damage against what you?d call ?trash mob? enemies. Then you have to consider resource management and casting speed which is usually much slower than a good sword. Then also consider the range and type of spell that works best for what kind of environment you?re in, or what enemies are present.

So no, it?s not easier, and melee isn?t the only challenging way to play. It?s simply a more straightforward type of challenge. I could probably come up with a good casting build if I researched it enough or copied someone else?s, but I still wouldn?t have the tactile feedback I get with a melee strength/dex build, which is more satisfying to me in a Souls game.

I simply classify a game by asking, What do you do most in the game? And the vast vast vast majority of a Souls game you are hacking and slashing your way through dungeons. Thus, they are a dungeon crawlers with hack and slash action combat. What is so loose about that? Calling them anything else would be "loose". RPG has long been reduced to a meaninglessness with regards to video games because they almost never focus on actual role-playing. And the guy in the article you linked to calls the Souls games RPGs. Explain to me how the majority of your time spent is role-playing in a Souls game? Just because a game has levels, stats, builds doesn't make it a role-playing game. Whereas something like the Mass Effect series has ignorantly been called shooters by gamers when you spent more time role-playing as Shepard than you do shooting things. RPGs are defined by what you do outside of combat. Remove combat from Souls and what do you have, nothing much at all. Remove combat from Mass Effect, and you still got a lot of game.

What amazingly different playstyles do you have in a Souls game? You can play Bloodborne style, you can play with a shield and turtle, or you can use magic. Playing with a big ass hammer vs a katana is only differentiated by how slow/fast each swing is. You still just dodge/block then attack. Even Bayonetta has more weapon variety than that.

I was a dex/faith build in Dark Souls 1 and magic did very much break boss battles. I do think you didn't get enough magic to kill everything between bonfires so you did need to use melee combat. From what I've heard about Demons, you can play through just using magic. And, I know very little about Dark Souls 2 and 3 with regards to magic builds.

The Souls games are very unbalanced (you can just look at the PvP to confirm that). Even your melee build with pyromancy shows how unbalanced the game is. Pyromancy's damage output that is not dependent on a stat. Thus, you could be a level 20 (pretty low) character with maxed out pyromancy (at least in Dark Souls 1, that's how it worked) and have far more damage output and options than a level 20 int/faith build as your melee/pyromaniac character stat-wised can be completely specced for melee combat while having powerful "magic" while the magic build literally can't be specced for melee if they want good magic. You can't have damage not tied to a stat and have balance. Same thing with how imbuing a weapon with an element like lightning bypasses the damage scaling stat thereby allowing the player to not care about their damage stat and allow them to invest more in say vitality and endurance vs a player using a straight katana has to invest in dex. It would be like a making a melee fighter in DnD and using strength as a dump stat because you have lightning sword that bypasses strength. The Souls games that I've played are very poorly balanced.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
The problem is that the most depth Souls ever gets up to is "dodge then hit with stick".

I haven't followed every detail of this conversation, but IMO, Dark Souls is trying to emulate a more or less realistic medieval combat feel. Of course, the constant rolling is not very realistic, but the overall premise of dodge/block, look for an opening and punish is what real melee combat has always been about. I think Souls intentionally doesn't have flashy animated special moves like say WoW or Diablo 3. It's just you, your weapon, and the enemy. Block or dodge with timing, then strike at the opening. Its carnal simplicity is not a lack of "depth." It's beautiful.

When William Wallace charged into battle in Braveheart, did he look down at his action bar and carefully manage his cooldowns and resources while going through a rotation of animated abilities like Rampage, Bloodthirst, Raging Blow, Furious Slash, and Execute? No, he simply dodged attacks and swung his sword.

There can be far more to "realistic" melee combat than what a Souls game offers the player. I know For Honor has plenty of issues but the core 1v1 gameplay is far above what a Souls game offers. Super Bunnyhop's For Honor review demonstrates how much there is to the core combat system and you actually have to "git gud" for real in that game. The combat in Kingdom Come Deliverance looks very promising as well.

Kerg3927:
Thank you. After 11 pages of trying to get you to answer that question, with you dancing, diverting, and weaseling around it, I finally got a half-assed concession on that point at least. It's a small victory, but I'll take it.

The rest is 100% subjective opinion about game design preference, with you sniveling around trying to make it into something more than that. I have tried to explain my opinion to you, and you refuse to accept it as valid. You somehow think I have to prove my opinion to you. No, I don't. I don't have to do shit. It's my opinion.

My conclusion is that we couldn't be on further opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to what we value in games and probably in life, so no amount of explaining is going to get you to understand my point of view, and thus continued discussion is entirely pointless.

Well for a start we've only been replying to each other consistently since around page 5 so not quite 11 pages
Secondly, the "I'm just respecting developers' choices" argument is one you've only been pushing relatively recently (hence my original bafflement at you bringing it up), and far from weaselling round it I've been pretty up front with my problems with it: If you insist that you respect designers' choice you also have to respect they can choose to make an easy mode, which you do not and so you are a hypocrite. Any attempt at discussing what choice they "should" make or which is the "right one" means you're looking at the merits of the options themselves...and the developers' choice stops being in the equation. This argument is nothing but self-defeating

Thirdly, I see "opinion" is your new word of the day, replacing "misrepresentation". But where did you get the idea that they were somehow unassailable? Opinions can absolutely be wrong. You hold the opinion that everyone asking for an easy mode is entitled and whiny, so yes I absolutely refuse to accept that as valid and am demanding you back that up. Thats what our whole argument has been about. I understand your point of view just fine, I just happen to think your point of view is completely and utterly wrong and based more on your own ego than any actual facts. You could have expressed yourself quite plainly, like Ironclash has been doing, but you can't resist trying to portray anyone requesting an easy mode as lazy, unfit or somehow inferior to you. We have gone past subjectivity, its just fact that you're an asshole who apparently needs other people to feel small so he can feel big. And I'm going to keep calling you out on that for as long as you keep doing it

Pallindromemordnillap:
If you insist that you respect designers' choice you also have to respect they can choose to make an easy mode, which you do not and so you are a hypocrite.

What you always fail to mention is that Dark Souls not having an easy mode is the designers' choice. While them adding an easy mode is NOT the designers' choice. The latter is a hypothetical that doesn't exist.

You see the difference? Probably not. But there is a difference between defending something as it currently successfully exists and selfishly demanding that something currently successful change to suit you personally.

Not once have I ever gotten on a message board and whined and demanded that a game remove an already existing easy mode.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Opinions can absolutely be wrong.

Not if the opinion is subjective.

Two dudes walking down the street. A chick walks by. One guy says man, she's hot. The other guy says pfffft no she's not... she's butt ass ugly. He then goes on to accuse the other guy of being wrong because he didn't support his opinion with facts. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Pallindromemordnillap:
We have gone past subjectivity...

No, we haven't.

Subjective - Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It is my subjective opinion that challenging games (like Dark Souls) that offer no easy mode are good. They force people to become better players in order to overcome the obstacles presented by the developers, which subsequently results in a warm sense of accomplishment and self-pride for those who persevere to beat the game.

It is my subjective opinion that it is good if games offer exclusive rewards commensurate with the challenges overcome. Better rewards for more effort and better play increase that sense of accomplishment and self-pride.

It is my subjective opinion that it is bad for gaming when people complain about the above types of games, demand that those types of games cease to exist, and try to shame developers who make those types of games. Because if those people ever get what they want, it will result in fewer games like that, or none at all.

And yes, it is also my subjective opinion that those same people are greedy and selfish, because the above types of games only make up a small minority of today's games. But they can't be happy with merely most games having easy modes. They have to demand that ALL games have them. Yes, it pisses me off, because it reeks of petty jealousy.

It is my subjective opinion that one of the motivations behind those complaints is to take that sense of accomplishment and self-pride away from people. They want the baby cut in half, because if they can't have it, then they don't want anyone having it.

Finally, it is my subjective opinion that most of those people who are whining about a game needing an easy mode could beat that game if they simply put as much effort into learning to play as they put into their whining. So I have little sympathy for them, especially when they have tons of other games to play that do have easy modes.

Kerg3927:

.

Phoenixmgs:

The benefits of civic equity are a far cry from artistic liberty on a piece of electronic entertainment. Should all classic literature be abridged? Or should all horror movies be censored?

Sure, those things can be done for the sake of inclusion, but also at the expense of what the media was designed to accomplish. Whether people want to admit it or not, it fundamentally changes the perception of the subject matter at hand if and when enough people latch onto the idea. If I was a creator, this would trouble me; an unintended perception where my work was to be seen as less significant or meaningful.

Games that forego easy modes are attempting to provide a specific experience. They're not "locked away" or "unavailable" just because they don't have one. All that's required is the same for practically any game, which is the player having normal motor/brain functions. Whether someone is willing to accept the intended experience is completely up to them. If not, there are certainly more than enough suitable alternatives. It's not a matter of being an asshole or feeling like a "big man" (I mean really, wtf), it's a matter of preserving artistic integrity. Trying to spin it into anything else only serves to reinforce Kerg's post above.

hanselthecaretaker:
The benefits of civic equity are a far cry from artistic liberty on a piece of electronic entertainment. Should all classic literature be abridged? Or should all horror movies be censored?

Games that forego easy modes are attempting to provide a specific experience.

Trying to spin it into anything else only serves to reinforce Kerg?s post above.

-Strawman much?

-You can't provide a specific experience no matter what because everyone is different. Someone playing on easy might have a more difficult time than you playing on hard or you playing on normal is a cakewalk for you.

-You and Kerg are arguing points no one is arguing. No one is demanding that games all have easy modes, no one is saying that devs shouldn't decide themselves the game's difficulty, etc. Kerg says there's barely any hard games, there's tons of them. If a game's "normal" isn't hard, then you can house rule it yourself to give yourself a challenge, it's kinda hard to house rule an easy mode. Lastly, easy modes don't ruin games; if Souls had a freaking god mode, you'd still have your game that you like.

Phoenixmgs:

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.

I'm not really a Souls 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.

It's definitely not it. You direct your dodge unless you just want to hop directly backwards, and depending on what attack you're dodging, you could dodge into the attack, or fail to avoid it. Loads of attacks exceed the reach of the basic hop backwards, meaning an undirected dodge won't help. If the enemy has a large reach and sweeps left, dodging left will get you hit.

If you simply pressed the dodge button without direction, you wouldn't even be able to dodge most attacks from the first boss. The Cleric Beast is designed to teach players this.

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.

Uhrm, this is simply untrue in BB. You are not invulnerable when dodging. If an attack connects, regardless of whether you're rolling or dodging, it can hit you.

Phoenixmgs:

Did I miss something? What does this have to do with adding easy modes? Kind of odd that your saying hansel is using straw mans.

Kerg3927:
What you always fail to mention is that Dark Souls not having an easy mode is the designers' choice. While them adding an easy mode is NOT the designers' choice. The latter is a hypothetical that doesn't exist.

You see the difference? Probably not. But there is a difference between defending something as it currently successfully exists and selfishly demanding that something currently successful change to suit you personally.

Not once have I ever gotten on a message board and whined and demanded that a game remove an already existing easy mode.

Its a hypothetical that you are adamant never occurs though. Which means you don't respect their choice to maybe do it in the future. Which is still not actually respecting a choice, since you'll only defend it if it goes your way.
And you have done plenty of whining about easy modes, right up to describing them as infections at one point. Never demanded their removal, true, but then no-one is demanding the removal of hard modes so not sure why you're drawing that parallel

Kerg3927:
Not if the opinion is subjective.

Which your opinion is not. "Everyone asking for an easy mode is an entitled whiny baby" is very easily disproven, and largely based on your own sense of entitlement

Kerg3927:
Two dudes walking down the street. A chick walks by. One guy says man, she's hot. The other guy says pfffft no she's not... she's butt ass ugly. He then goes on to accuse the other guy of being wrong because he didn't support his opinion with facts. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Honestly doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Have you never asked someone "What do you see in her/him?" Its admitting you don't find someone attractive the way the other person does and asking them to provide answers. What would really sound ridiculous in this scenario would be the first guy responding to the second by telling him he was clearly just bad at seeing and was obviously just demanding everyone be seen as ugly because he was having trouble with the beauty of this one person.
The first guy represent you in this situation, in case you missed that

Kerg3927:
No, we haven't.

Subjective - Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It is my subjective opinion that challenging games (like Dark Souls) that offer no easy mode are good. They force people to become better players in order to overcome the obstacles presented by the developers, which subsequently results in a warm sense of accomplishment and self-pride for those who persevere to beat the game.

It is my subjective opinion that it is good if games offer exclusive rewards commensurate with the challenges overcome. Better rewards for more effort and better play increase that sense of accomplishment and self-pride.

Which just leads me to once again point out that someone finding a hard mode too hard is still going to find easy mode a challenge. They will still get a sense of accomplishment and will actually have a better chance of becoming better players, like you say you want, because now they can ease into it and actually learn. By your own logic you should approve of easy modes

Kerg3927:
It is my subjective opinion that it is bad for gaming when people complain about the above types of games, demand that those types of games cease to exist, and try to shame developers who make those types of games. Because if those people ever get what they want, it will result in fewer games like that, or none at all.

Hard modes will continue to exist, existing with rather than being replaced by easy modes. This opinion is wrong.
Also, only person I'm trying to shame here is you, for your short-sighted elitism

Kerg3927:
And yes, it is also my subjective opinion that those same people are greedy and selfish, because the above types of games only make up a small minority of today's games. But they can't be happy with merely most games having easy modes. They have to demand that ALL games have them. Yes, it pisses me off, because it reeks of petty jealousy.

Only thing this reeks of is projection. Being greedy and selfish would mean they get to have the game and someone else doesn't and the only person demanding that is you. You have the one game you think is "yours" and when you see other people wanting to play it you try to hoard it away from them, and yet its them you think are the jealous ones?

Kerg3927:
It is my subjective opinion that one of the motivations behind those complaints is to take that sense of accomplishment and self-pride away from people. They want the baby cut in half, because if they can't have it, then they don't want anyone having it.

Again, no-one loses anything. You can still play on hard mode and would still get respect for playing it as such. People asking for an easy mode don't want no-one to have Dark Souls, they want everyone to have Dark Souls, pretty much the opposite of what you're describing

Kerg3927:
Finally, it is my subjective opinion that most of those people who are whining about a game needing an easy mode could beat that game if they simply put as much effort into learning to play as they put into their whining. So I have little sympathy for them, especially when they have tons of other games to play that do have easy modes.

But why do you think that? Why do you think that everyone is on exactly your level with exactly your skills, exactly your experience, exactly your reflexes? This is why you come across as such a self-entitled, elitist arse, because in insisting on labelling everyone as "lazy" you're writing off anyone who is legitimately struggling. Its like a rich kid with a massive allowance who got got handed a job at his dad's company telling someone poorer they just need to try if they want their own Ferrari, just a total lack of ability to think outside your own situation

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
It is my subjective opinion that challenging games (like Dark Souls) that offer no easy mode are good. They force people to become better players in order to overcome the obstacles presented by the developers, which subsequently results in a warm sense of accomplishment and self-pride for those who persevere to beat the game.

It is my subjective opinion that it is good if games offer exclusive rewards commensurate with the challenges overcome. Better rewards for more effort and better play increase that sense of accomplishment and self-pride.

Which just leads me to once again point out that someone finding a hard mode too hard is still going to find easy mode a challenge. They will still get a sense of accomplishment and will actually have a better chance of becoming better players, like you say you want, because now they can ease into it and actually learn. By your own logic you should approve of easy modes

Some will, and only if they replay the game and bump up the difficulty. But others, particularly weak and lazy people, will be tempted to select easy mode, faceroll through the game, ruin/spoil the experience for themselves, get bored quickly and toss it aside, and never experience the game's challenges as intended by the developer and never experience any sense of accomplishment and self-pride as a result. So there is a tradeoff, and in my opinion, avoiding the latter is more important.

You obviously have a different opinion, and that's fine. My game design preference encourages people to excel. Your preference does the opposite. Not all gamers wanting an easy mode are weak and lazy, but many of them certainly are, and an easy mode caters to and reinforces that unhealthy behavior, and it robs those people of an opportunity to break those poor habits and experience a sense of accomplishment and self-pride as a result.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
And yes, it is also my subjective opinion that those same people are greedy and selfish, because the above types of games only make up a small minority of today's games. But they can't be happy with merely most games having easy modes. They have to demand that ALL games have them. Yes, it pisses me off, because it reeks of petty jealousy.

Only thing this reeks of is projection. Being greedy and selfish would mean they get to have the game and someone else doesn't and the only person demanding that is you. You have the one game you think is "yours" and when you see other people wanting to play it you try to hoard it away from them, and yet its them you think are the jealous ones?

They are wanting to play a game that I like, and they want the game changed so they don't have to play by the current rules. I'm not hoarding anything. The game is available to anyone. I just think if they're going to play it, they should play by the rules. To demand that the rules be changed for them personally would be selfish.

I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept to understand. But I guess people are different. Some people think whining every time something doesn't go your way is perfectly okay. I don't. Again, difference of opinion.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
It is my subjective opinion that one of the motivations behind those complaints is to take that sense of accomplishment and self-pride away from people. They want the baby cut in half, because if they can't have it, then they don't want anyone having it.

Again, no-one loses anything. You can still play on hard mode and would still get respect for playing it as such. People asking for an easy mode don't want no-one to have Dark Souls, they want everyone to have Dark Souls, pretty much the opposite of what you're describing

See above. The people playing on easy mode merely because they are weak and lazy would not be facing a challenge, and thus no, they would not be playing Dark Souls. Dark Souls without the challenge is not Dark Souls. So those people would miss out on the experience anyway, in my opinion.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Finally, it is my subjective opinion that most of those people who are whining about a game needing an easy mode could beat that game if they simply put as much effort into learning to play as they put into their whining. So I have little sympathy for them, especially when they have tons of other games to play that do have easy modes.

But why do you think that? Why do you think that everyone is on exactly your level with exactly your skills, exactly your experience, exactly your reflexes? This is why you come across as such a self-entitled, elitist arse, because in insisting on labelling everyone as "lazy" you're writing off anyone who is legitimately struggling. Its like a rich kid with a massive allowance who got got handed a job at his dad's company telling someone poorer they just need to try if they want their own Ferrari, just a total lack of ability to think outside your own situation

Because I don't think my skills and reflexes are anything special. And I obviously have more faith in people's abilities and potential to improve than you do. I've seen it firsthand. When I was raiding in WoW. I saw many new players who were bad initially, but who, after being thrown into the fire and humbled, worked to get better and went on to become very good players. The only ones that didn't get better were the ones who whined and blamed game mechanics and made other lame excuses for their shortcomings and refused to put in the effort required.

Silvanus:
It's definitely not it. You direct your dodge unless you just want to hop directly backwards, and depending on what attack you're dodging, you could dodge into the attack, or fail to avoid it. Loads of attacks exceed the reach of the basic hop backwards, meaning an undirected dodge won't help. If the enemy has a large reach and sweeps left, dodging left will get you hit.

If you simply pressed the dodge button without direction, you wouldn't even be able to dodge most attacks from the first boss. The Cleric Beast is designed to teach players this.

Uhrm, this is simply untrue in BB. You are not invulnerable when dodging. If an attack connects, regardless of whether you're rolling or dodging, it can hit you.

I didn't literally mean you just press O, then press R1 and that's it. Of course, you're going to dodge in a direction just like any other game with a dodge mechanic. Bloodborne's dodge/dash has i-frames just like any decent to good action game. The only action combat game that I know of that doesn't have i-frames on the basic dodge Witcher 3 (you need to get the dodge skill to get i-frames) and combat feels bad because of it, plus the hit-boxes are pretty bad. Making really accurate hit-boxes is hard while adding i-frames is easy. The Cleric Beast is there to teach players how to fight against big beasts, which is by getting right on top of them and not using lock-on. This How-to video on the Cleric Beast even states you'll want to dodge THROUGH its attacks. If you get in trouble positioning-wise, just lock-on and mash the dash 2-3 times to get out of trouble. Any action game with a dodge that has i-frames (which is just about every action game ever), positioning doesn't matter when you can just dodge through attacks because of said i-frames.

Ezekiel:
Did I miss something? What does this have to do with adding easy modes? Kind of odd that your saying hansel is using straw mans.

Someone didn't watch the video. And, you can't compare 2 different types of mediums like they are both apples. This whole thread has been Hansel and Kerg strawmanning against points no one has made.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Did I miss something? What does this have to do with adding easy modes? Kind of odd that your saying hansel is using straw mans.

Someone didn't watch the video. And, you can't compare 2 different types of mediums like they are both apples. This whole thread has been Hansel and Kerg strawmanning against points no one has made.

Don't insult me. I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't watched the video. The accessibility options he discusses and difficulty modes are two different things.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Did I miss something? What does this have to do with adding easy modes? Kind of odd that your saying hansel is using straw mans.

Someone didn't watch the video. And, you can't compare 2 different types of mediums like they are both apples. This whole thread has been Hansel and Kerg strawmanning against points no one has made.

Don't insult me. I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't watched the video. The accessibility options he discusses and difficulty modes are two different things.

Difficulty modes were discussed in the video...

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Someone didn't watch the video. And, you can't compare 2 different types of mediums like they are both apples. This whole thread has been Hansel and Kerg strawmanning against points no one has made.

Don't insult me. I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't watched the video. The accessibility options he discusses and difficulty modes are two different things.

Difficulty modes were discussed in the video...

VERY briefly. The video isn't about that.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Difficulty modes were discussed in the video...

VERY briefly. The video isn't about that.

Because difficulty modes are a form of accessibility options.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Someone didn't watch the video. And, you can't compare 2 different types of mediums like they are both apples. This whole thread has been Hansel and Kerg strawmanning against points no one has made.

Don't insult me. I wouldn't be asking if I hadn't watched the video. The accessibility options he discusses and difficulty modes are two different things.

Difficulty modes were discussed in the video...

What exactly are the "points no one has made"? You and a couple others here have been pining on why it's no big deal if easy modes were added to games without them (mainly Souls), because challenge seekers would still have the hard modes.

What we've been trying to explain to no avail is that the games would undeniably be changed. You're flip-flopping between "What does it matter, it'd still be the same game with an easy mode" and "Why do you want to deny more casual players the experience, jerk?" upon the inevitable realization that the former can't possibly be the case. This has been going on for several pages, making it pretty clear there will likely be no reconciliation of viewpoints. Two very fundamentally differing schools of thought are at play and it's becoming quite the black hole.

hanselthecaretaker:
What exactly are the ?points no one has made?? You and a couple others here have been pining on why it?s no big deal if easy modes were added to games without them (mainly Souls), because challenge seekers would still have the hard modes.

What we?ve been trying to explain to no avail is that the games would undeniably be changed. You?re flip-flopping between ?What does it matter, it?d still be the same game with an easy mode? and ?Why do you want to deny more casual players the experience, jerk?? upon the inevitable realization that the former can?t possibly be the case. This has been going on for several pages, making it pretty clear there will likely be no reconciliation of viewpoints. Two very fundamentally differing schools of thought are at play and it?s becoming quite the black hole.

Lots of arguments have been made claiming people are DEMANDING that every game have an easy mode or that difficulty modes take away precious dev time, which both aren't true. You claimed games without difficulty modes are ATTEMPTING to provide a specific experience, they are ATTEMPTING because it's impossible to provide a specific experience. If a dev WANTS to put in difficulty modes, it's not going to change the core game. Some of the most hardcore games have very easy modes without sacrificing anything at all. Allowing a player to tailor a game to their specific skill-level, their needs (disabilities), or their just plain preferences isn't going to have a negative effect on any players. In fact, it only has net positives.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
What exactly are the ?points no one has made?? You and a couple others here have been pining on why it?s no big deal if easy modes were added to games without them (mainly Souls), because challenge seekers would still have the hard modes.

What we?ve been trying to explain to no avail is that the games would undeniably be changed. You?re flip-flopping between ?What does it matter, it?d still be the same game with an easy mode? and ?Why do you want to deny more casual players the experience, jerk?? upon the inevitable realization that the former can?t possibly be the case. This has been going on for several pages, making it pretty clear there will likely be no reconciliation of viewpoints. Two very fundamentally differing schools of thought are at play and it?s becoming quite the black hole.

Lots of arguments have been made claiming people are DEMANDING that every game have an easy mode or that difficulty modes take away precious dev time, which both aren't true. You claimed games without difficulty modes are ATTEMPTING to provide a specific experience, they are ATTEMPTING because it's impossible to provide a specific experience. If a dev WANTS to put in difficulty modes, it's not going to change the core game. Some of the most hardcore games have very easy modes without sacrificing anything at all. Allowing a player to tailor a game to their specific skill-level, their needs (disabilities), or their just plain preferences isn't going to have a negative effect on any players. In fact, it only has net positives.

Difficulty modes to me primarily only seem to add stress. I understand why games have them, especially fighting games, sports games, etc. but to me it's one more thing to have to think about. It affects the overall enjoyment of the game the more choices there are, and I'm constantly reminded of it when playing; especially if it's a new IP:

- What difficulty should I start this game on?
- Would it have been better if I had picked another?
- What and how much of the gameplay really changes depending on which one I select?
- Do I have to play through everything on the hardest to really experience the full game at its best?
- Will I really feel like playing through it again on the higher, often unlocked difficulty (typically not)?
- Etc.

Most of the time games with "Hardcore" difficulty levels end up being cheap and frustrating anyways, because all they do is toggle sliders for health, ammo, damage, bullet sponging, etc.

If anything, the more difficulty options a game has, the worse it makes me feel if I don't complete them all, or the highest one. I end up being forced to not care about the game as much if I don't have the patience or skill to tackle its highest offering, which is unfortunate because it indirectly sours my opinion of the game.

With a game like Dark Souls, GTAV or even MGSV, I don't have to deal with any of that shit. Even the latter's ranking system is a non issue, because it's still one game, and the various challenges within are independent of some arbitrarily set values in a menu. If it was like MGS4 with a ranking system on top of the difficulty select, I'd let out a heavy sigh. I ended up going through that game three times on successive difficulty levels before getting the Big Boss emblem, and I only did that because I love the series regardless. However, it still only made the game feel like more of a chore rather than being able to simply focus on the fun to be had.

Phoenixmgs:

I didn't literally mean you just press O, then press R1 and that's it. Of course, you're going to dodge in a direction just like any other game with a dodge mechanic. Bloodborne's dodge/dash has i-frames just like any decent to good action game. The only action combat game that I know of that doesn't have i-frames on the basic dodge Witcher 3 (you need to get the dodge skill to get i-frames) and combat feels bad because of it, plus the hit-boxes are pretty bad. Making really accurate hit-boxes is hard while adding i-frames is easy. The Cleric Beast is there to teach players how to fight against big beasts, which is by getting right on top of them and not using lock-on. This How-to video on the Cleric Beast even states you'll want to dodge THROUGH its attacks. If you get in trouble positioning-wise, just lock-on and mash the dash 2-3 times to get out of trouble. Any action game with a dodge that has i-frames (which is just about every action game ever), positioning doesn't matter when you can just dodge through attacks because of said i-frames.

It has i-frames, yes, but they're not simply in effect while dodging. You can be hit by most attacks while dodging, for most of the action-- That's inarguably true. So being in a corner and just dodging into the corner wouldn't help you, if the enemies were hacking away. That's simply not how it works.

Kerg3927:

Some will, and only if they replay the game and bump up the difficulty. But others, particularly weak and lazy people, will be tempted to select easy mode, faceroll through the game, ruin/spoil the experience for themselves, get bored quickly and toss it aside, and never experience the game's challenges as intended by the developer and never experience any sense of accomplishment and self-pride as a result. So there is a tradeoff, and in my opinion, avoiding the latter is more important.

Okay, your argument here is more or less "Must keep the game clear of the Heretics for they are unclean" which is really a little bit sinister.
Assuming for a second that this great swathe of The Weak And Lazy exist anywhere outside of your own head why do you consider it important they not be allowed to play Dark Souls? In what way does someone doing exactly what you describe hurt you, or have any effect on you at all? Especially given that, from reading the comments in this very topic, there are already people who can do that? Phoenixmgs doesn't find Dark Souls much of a challenge even on hard mode, you going to insist he never play it because he's not "experiencing the challenges as intended by the developer"?

Kerg3927:
You obviously have a different opinion, and that's fine. My game design preference encourages people to excel. Your preference does the opposite. Not all gamers wanting an easy mode are weak and lazy, but many of them certainly are, and an easy mode caters to and reinforces that unhealthy behavior, and it robs those people of an opportunity to break those poor habits and experience a sense of accomplishment and self-pride as a result.

A) Having players slam into a brick wall and telling them to git gud or fuck off only encourages them to fuck off and not play the game. You would in fact be encouraging this dreaded heathen laziness you fear so much. As I have spent a good amount of time pointing out the better way to get people to learn would be to start them off slow and with something they can manage before working them up. So, with an easy mode
B) Going to restate what I said above, that even if The Grand Horde Of The Weak And Lazy is in fact a real thing and not a construct you've invented to try and make yourself feel elevated, so what if they're playing Dark Souls? It doesn't affect or alter your experience in any way and Namco Bandai don't care because, hey, they still get the money so its no problem for them
C) What authority do you have exactly to be telling people how they should play a game and how they should feel about playing it that way? Are you Thought Police, because I'm going to need to ask for your badge number if you are.

Kerg3927:
They are wanting to play a game that I like, and they want the game changed so they don't have to play by the current rules. I'm not hoarding anything. The game is available to anyone. I just think if they're going to play it, they should play by the rules. To demand that the rules be changed for them personally would be selfish.

I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept to understand. But I guess people are different. Some people think whining every time something doesn't go your way is perfectly okay. I don't. Again, difference of opinion.

I'd say its debatable how much adding an easy mode would actually change the rules, depends on what was done to make things easier. But either way, the suggestions to add an easy mode are being suggested for the benefit of groups of people, not anyone personally. Saying "I think there should be a mode in Dark Souls where anyone with four Ls in their Escapist username becomes invincible" would be me advocating for a rules change to suit me personally, saying "Theres probably a lot of people who could do with a bit of a leg up to play this thing intended to be played" is basic empathy.
Also, do you really think you have any room to complain about people whining, given how often your arguments become "Nooooo, other people will be playing my game!"? You've done more whining than anyone else

Kerg3927:
See above. The people playing on easy mode merely because they are weak and lazy would not be facing a challenge, and thus no, they would not be playing Dark Souls. Dark Souls without the challenge is not Dark Souls. So those people would miss out on the experience anyway, in my opinion.

They would miss out on something that you personally are placing importance on. Entirely possible they aren't looking for what you are looking for. Maybe they want to play for the lore, or simply to enjoy the look of the things. And since I can reliably predict that your response to that will be "Just watch a Lets Play!" I have to ask how annoying you'd find it if every time you wanted to read a book someone slapped it out of your hands and started reading it for you

Kerg3927:
Because I don't think my skills and reflexes are anything special. And I obviously have more faith in people's abilities and potential to improve than you do. I've seen it firsthand. When I was raiding in WoW. I saw many new players who were bad initially, but who, after being thrown into the fire and humbled, worked to get better and went on to become very good players. The only ones that didn't get better were the ones who whined and blamed game mechanics and made other lame excuses for their shortcomings and refused to put in the effort required.

If you don't think that you being familiar with the game and playing it before makes a difference compared to someone who's never played it before and merely knows about the difficulty second-hand, then you are an idiot. You say you expect people to improve...but I really don't think you do. They way you describe anyone who doesn't play the way you do, describing them as weak, lazy, entitled, inferior, wanting to keep anyone you see that way at arms length from you, I think you like having people you can look down on. I think you like being able to patronise or insult people you think you're better than, and difficulty levels are an easy way of you "proving" that. And that is why you continue to be an elitist arsehole

i-frames are overrated. I want more efficient animations, more evasive and defensive options and better hitboxes. Also, less HP loss and less chance of getting stun-locked or blown away for evading and still getting hit. i-frames are an easy, lazy, cheap, unrealistic way out.

hanselthecaretaker:
Difficulty modes to me primarily only seem to add stress. I understand why games have them, especially fighting games, sports games, etc. but to me it?s one more thing to have to think about. It affects the overall enjoyment of the game the more choices there are, and I?m constantly reminded of it when playing; especially if it?s a new IP:

- What difficulty should I start this game on?
- Would it have been better if I had picked another?
- What and how much of the gameplay really changes depending on which one I select?
- Do I have to play through everything on the hardest to really experience the full game at its best?
- Will I really feel like playing through it again on the higher, often unlocked difficulty (typically not)?
- Etc.

Most of the time games with ?Hardcore? difficulty levels end up being cheap and frustrating anyways, because all they do is toggle sliders for health, ammo, damage, bullet sponging, etc.

If anything, the more difficulty options a game has, the worse it makes me feel if I don?t complete them all, or the highest one. I end up being forced to not care about the game as much if I don?t have the patience or skill to tackle its highest offering, which is unfortunate because it indirectly sours my opinion of the game.

With a game like Dark Souls, GTAV or even MGSV, I don?t have to deal with any of that shit. Even the latter?s ranking system is a non issue, because it?s still one game, and the various challenges within are independent of some arbitrarily set values in a menu. If it was like MGS4 with a ranking system on top of the difficulty select, I?d let out a heavy sigh. I ended up going through that game three times on successive difficulty levels before getting the Big Boss emblem, and I only did that because I love the series regardless. However, it still only made the game feel like more of a chore rather than being able to simply focus on the fun to be had.

That sounds like a very personal issue you have with games and difficulty levels. You can usually change the difficulty level at any time in most games so if it's too hard/easy, you don't have to start over. I only replay games that are amazing from a mechanics standpoint, which are few and far between. A difficulty level isn't going to magically make the game that much better or worse, either the mechanics are good or they're not.

Silvanus:
It has i-frames, yes, but they're not simply in effect while dodging. You can be hit by most attacks while dodging, for most of the action-- That's inarguably true. So being in a corner and just dodging into the corner wouldn't help you, if the enemies were hacking away. That's simply not how it works.

What attack(s) can't be avoided in Bloodborne? Sure staying in a corner with 3 or so enemies attacking isn't good and you probably can't dodge all their attacks since they aren't all attacking at the same time. If you do find yourself in a bad place, it's really easy to get out of it by mashing dodge a couple times and getting to someplace else. There's so much pretension about what the Souls games require of players acting like positioning is anymore important than any other action game or acting like the stamina system makes every move you make critical in success or failure; you have to manage stamina in Vanquish far more than you do in a Souls game for example. Stamina just acts as a DPS limiter for the most part, you dodge/block and attack until your stamina is gone then dodge back out to start the whole procedure again. That's as deep as the games get from a combat mechanics perspective.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay, your argument here is more or less "Must keep the game clear of the Heretics for they are unclean" which is really a little bit sinister. Assuming for a second that this great swathe of The Weak And Lazy exist anywhere outside of your own head why do you consider it important they not be allowed to play Dark Souls?

No, that's not what I said. Just more of your shitty, cheap lawyer, weasel tactics. Twisting something completely around and putting words in my mouth.

Pallindromemordnillap:
In what way does someone doing exactly what you describe hurt you, or have any effect on you at all?

It doesn't matter. I don't even play golf, but I would also be against people whining that golf courses need to add a mechanism in which one could press a button and the ball automatically rolls into the hole. I think that would be bad. You would probably disagree. It doesn't have to affect me tangibly and personally for me to form the opinion that it is bad. I think it's bad because I don't want to see people tempted to use such a button. I'd rather they learn how to play golf instead, because I think it would be good for them, and I think doing it without resorting to an easy mode button would make them happier. Building self esteem is a good thing, in my opinion.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Especially given that, from reading the comments in this very topic, there are already people who can do that? Phoenixmgs doesn't find Dark Souls much of a challenge even on hard mode, you going to insist he never play it because he's not "experiencing the challenges as intended by the developer"?

There is no Dark Souls hard mode. There is simply Dark Souls. Phoenixmgs is full of shit, in my opinion. But he certainly is experiencing the challenges as intended by the developer because he's playing the game as it was intended, not in some altered form.

Pallindromemordnillap:
A) Having players slam into a brick wall and telling them to git gud or fuck off only encourages them to fuck off and not play the game. You would in fact be encouraging this dreaded heathen laziness you fear so much. As I have spent a good amount of time pointing out the better way to get people to learn would be to start them off slow and with something they can manage before working them up. So, with an easy mode

I say tom-ay-to, you say tom-ah-to. Difference of opinion.

Pallindromemordnillap:
B) Going to restate what I said above, that even if The Grand Horde Of The Weak And Lazy is in fact a real thing and not a construct you've invented to try and make yourself feel elevated, so what if they're playing Dark Souls? It doesn't affect or alter your experience in any way and Namco Bandai don't care because, hey, they still get the money so its no problem for them

See above.

Pallindromemordnillap:
C) What authority do you have exactly to be telling people how they should play a game and how they should feel about playing it that way? Are you Thought Police, because I'm going to need to ask for your badge number if you are.

Again, you are twisting things around and putting words in my mouth with your shit tactics. I am doing neither. FromSoftware/Namco Bandai are the ones telling people how to play the games they develop/publish, and they do have authority. Absolute fucking authority. I'm simply forming an opinion about the game and voicing it. Last I checked, one doesn't need authority or a badge to do that.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'd say its debatable how much adding an easy mode would actually change the rules, depends on what was done to make things easier.

Good to see you finally admit that something, anything at all, can actually be debatable.

Pallindromemordnillap:
...saying "Theres probably a lot of people who could do with a bit of a leg up to play this thing intended to be played" is basic empathy.

And saying that keeping the game as is would be good for people, because it encourages people to beat the game the normal way, which will make them feel good about themselves, is also empathy.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Also, do you really think you have any room to complain about people whining, given how often your arguments become "Nooooo, other people will be playing my game!"? You've done more whining than anyone else

More shit tactics. I've never said that or thought that. I would like to see as many people as possible play Dark Souls and beat it, by the current rules.

Pallindromemordnillap:
They would miss out on something that you personally are placing importance on.

And things FromSoftware/Bandai Namco obviously think is important, because that's the way they designed the game.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Entirely possible they aren't looking for what you are looking for. Maybe they want to play for the lore, or simply to enjoy the look of the things. And since I can reliably predict that your response to that will be "Just watch a Lets Play!" I have to ask how annoying you'd find it if every time you wanted to read a book someone slapped it out of your hands and started reading it for you

And that's why a video game is not the same as a book. A game is interactive and contains obstacles to overcome. A book does not. They are entirely different things. Demanding that a game remove its obstacles to be like a book is about as silly as someone demanding that a book become interactive and have obstacles added to it.

Pallindromemordnillap:
If you don't think that you being familiar with the game and playing it before makes a difference compared to someone who's never played it before and merely knows about the difficulty second-hand, then you are an idiot.

Of course people improve with experience. Just like in Dark Souls, every time you die, you learn from your mistakes and improve. That is the intent. It's not learn to quickly give up and turn it down to easy mode so you don't have to learn from your mistakes. That was obviously not the intent, because they didn't make that option available.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You say you expect people to improve...but I really don't think you do. They way you describe anyone who doesn't play the way you do, describing them as weak, lazy, entitled, inferior, wanting to keep anyone you see that way at arms length from you, I think you like having people you can look down on. I think you like being able to patronise or insult people you think you're better than, and difficulty levels are an easy way of you "proving" that. And that is why you continue to be an elitist arsehole

You are free to have that opinion. But it is entirely false. I don't feel good when I see someone whine and demand an easy way out. I do the opposite. I cringe. I feel bad for them. I want to help them. As I said above, I'd love to see as many people as possible beat Dark Souls, by the current rules. The more the better.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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