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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT
 

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
People have legitimate reasons for not wanting easy modes in many of their games.

I've yet to see one...

What Team Meat said in post 18...

What Meiam said in post 19...

I know this is an exercise in futility, though. Seeing as it's you and Demon's Souls was mentioned. Edit: Oh, you did reply to him. But you simplified much of what he said and refused to imagine the countless other possibly examples. He explained (and Team Meat) that it takes a lot of effort, which you refuse to accept.

No one was asking devs to change level design in difficulty modes...

I like this video better:

It's basically the opposite of what Sterling has been saying. That the difficulty is a part of the art.

Kerg3927:

Captain Marvelous:
The "other side" wants to keep people from enjoying a game unless they "git gud". "You want to enjoy the game, but it's too hard? Well fuck you!"

No, it's really not like that at all. If I go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and decide I want to order a hamburger, does the lack of a hamburger on KFC's menu mean that Colonel Sanders is saying "fuck you" to me? No, because if I wanted a hamburger, I could have gone to McDonald's down the street instead. Every game does not have to cater to everyone, and to think that it does is asinine.

Fun fact: where I live, KFCs all have an A&W burger joint bolted to the side of them.

Works out pretty well. Nobody's screeching about how having to know how to make a burger is making their fried chicken worse.

EDIT: My favorite episodes been the Tekkan Juggling one. Trying to be an elitist asshole while whinging about a perfectly legit and already sanctioned play style? Lol.

Phoenixmgs:

Oh, come on, devs are horrible at balancing games regardless if there's difficulty modes or not. Balancing guns is a shooter is so freaking easy but that's rarely done right when there's more online shooters than ever before. Souls is notoriously unbalanced as the PvP side of the game shines a big damn spotlight on everything balance related. Dark Souls has a freaking main stat that does nothing for example. They had to fix weapon scaling because you could just make a sword a lightning sword and it would do more damage than if you actually invested into the scaling stat. Anyway, getting off of Souls games in general, most games are balanced for a single difficulty and then just altered slightly changing simple things like HP and damage. Nobody bitched when Bayonetta released with a very easy mode that allowed for Wicked Weaves with single button presses. Nobody bitched when Vanquish's easy mode has auto-aim. Those games are as hardcore as you can get, more hardcore than Souls and difficulty modes didn't ruin them. And, Platinum even goes the extra mile in making the difficulty modes different instead of just the standard lazy changes to health and damage. Lastly, no one is asking for devs to change the environment on easier difficulties. They can easily throw in an item to be found or bought that can make a tough environmental area easier if they so want. It's up to the devs, I don't care if Souls get an easy mode or not, but more options is better than less options. ALWAYS.

Hell, Neir: Automata can be both ball-bustingly hard and dead-simple, with changes in difficulty ranging far more widely than your standard easy/normal/hard with gear changes and AI tweaks, and that hasn't seemed to hurt the game any. If anything, it's proving it can be done.

I, for one, would be more than happy if the games industry took Platinum's design philosophy and ran with it.

Zhukov:

Kerg3927:
No, it's really not like that at all. If I go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and decide I want to order a hamburger, does the lack of a hamburger on KFC's menu mean that Colonel Sanders is saying "fuck you" to me? No, because if I wanted a hamburger, I could have gone to McDonald's down the street instead. Every game does not have to cater to everyone, and to think that it does is asinine.

If KFC did decide to start offering hamburgers for whatever reason do you think that would justify a KFC customer throwing a tantrum along the lines of, "How dare you cater to those McDonald's plebs?! KFC should be for chicken lovers like me only!"

Or would that customer just be a hilariously petty idiot worthy of nothing but ridicule?

Except that's not the situation here. As I understand it, all of this controversy began with this click-bait article. Which is a gaming journalist saying games should have a skip button. I haven't seen any devs actually say that this is a real option that has ever been considered.

So yeah, this is 5-year old sitting in a restaurant throwing a temper tantrum because he wants something that isn't on the menu. Not the other way around. And when the adults try to teach the 5-year olds that they can't always have exactly what they want, the 5-year olds starts hurling insults at the adults calling them elitist assholes, twats, and pricks, just to cite a few from this thread.

Ezekiel:
I like this video better:

It's basically the opposite of what Sterling has been saying. That the difficulty is a part of the art.

It's quite funny that Dark Souls already has "difficulty modes"

Kerg3927:
Except that's not the situation here.

Yes it is.

Ubisoft adds a zero-challenge free-roam mode to their newest AC game. Whining shithead gamers throw a tantrum.

Nintendo adds an autopilot mode to a Mario game. Hilarious fuckwit gamers throw a tantrum.

Nintendo adds an assisted driver mode to Mario Kart. Cringing turd gamers throw a tantrum.

That one woman from Bioware (Jennifer Kepler? Hepler? Something like that.) mentions vague idea of a skip combat button. Gatekeeping douchebag gamers throw a tantrum.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
I like this video better:

It's basically the opposite of what Sterling has been saying. That the difficulty is a part of the art.

It's quite funny that Dark Souls already has "difficulty modes"

A nine minute long video by that guy? I don't wanna watch it. I agree with GamingBrit anyway. He wasn't just talking about Dark Souls.

Oh, y'all need to relax.

You know as well as me that, if devs were "freed" from including difficulty levels, the marginal extra money wouldn't be funneled back into balancing, it would be funneled into bugfixing. Don't fool yourselves.

Plus, difficulty isn't just bigger/smaller numbers. Silent Hill 2/3 had action AND riddle difficulties seperate, and higher action difficulties added cool things. Normal difficulty added the "ability" to fall off edges, and hard difficulty added wall collisions to weapons and running characters. If you sucked, they would offer a new "Beginner" difficulty, and SH3 offered TEN "Extreme" variants that made enemies much more threatening, cut game clocks, slashed your max health, and boosted stamina drain.

The game got literally over a dozen replays out of me entirely via well-managed difficulty options.

Can people not laugh at themselves. Honestly. Even when I have a really polarizing views to Jim, he's just go goddamn funny when he presents it I can't help but laugh. So many salty sailors in here I swear, did he burn you in a forum discussion one time?

He is entertainment, his opinions should be taken as thus, he tries very hard to correct himself if an overwhelming majority call him out on something said incorrectly. He handled a utterly incredible bullshit lawsuit against him with the grace of those dancing hippos from fantasia. And he works hard to advocate for consumer rights.

Regardless of what you think about his parody (and lord help you if you take any of it so seriously as to take offence) I have nothing but respect for ol' Jimbo.

Funnily enough, this is a non-issue. Commentocracy is not meant to be taken seriously:

Watch either of these to get his actual opinion (or just check the comments of the first one. Should be top comment). First one is a 10 minute video, but for the second one, I just have it start at the point he specifically mentions his stance:

He specifically uses Dark Souls as the example, but it is his opinion on any game with this difficulty mode debate. You are still free to disagree, but as I said, you are not even meant to take Commentocracy seriously. It is just meant to be a comedy series.

Charli:
Can people not laugh at themselves. Honestly. Even when I have a really polarizing views to Jim, he's just go goddamn funny when he presents it I can't help but laugh. So many salty sailors in here I swear, did he burn you in a forum discussion one time?

He is entertainment, his opinions should be taken as thus, he tries very hard to correct himself if an overwhelming majority call him out on something said incorrectly. He handled a utterly incredible bullshit lawsuit against him with the grace of those dancing hippos from fantasia. And he works hard to advocate for consumer rights.

Regardless of what you think about his parody (and lord help you if you take any of it so seriously as to take offence) I have nothing but respect for ol' Jimbo.

I don't find him funny. He's never been funny. The only time he's funny is when he's playing really bad games, and that's more the game than him.

I don't understand the thought process of these kinds of people, the ones against an easy mode. They're against an easy mode that they would never use anyway, and the idea of OTHER people possibly enjoying a game they otherwise wouldn't touch somehow makes the game worse.

So a dev team needs to spend extra time adjusting code and figuring out how to make an easy mode work? Good. At least the team is put in a situation where THEIR skills are tested and they learn how to do their job better, and can apply that knowledge in the future, instead of just adding higher numbers to damage values and calling it challenging.

Ezekiel:
A nine minute long video by that guy? I don't wanna watch it. I agree with GamingBrit anyway. He wasn't just talking about Dark Souls.

And your video featured the line "Take the Souls games for example. Those titles forged a community around the difficulty." What?! To beat a Souls game is easy as hell because the games have basically a "very easy" mode built-in. If anything the community was forged around figuring out the mechanics, the secrets, the lore; none of which has anything to do with difficulty. Throwing in a mode with a simple more player HP / less enemy HP takes like 5 minutes to code, you're just changing a couple variables. All games are balanced for a set difficulty anyway. You guys are acting like having say 5 difficulty modes takes 5 times longer to balance; nope, devs just balance "normal" mode and that's it. ANY OPTION for the player is inherently GOOD because if you don't like it, you don't have to use it, the whole point of the other modes is that they are purposefully unbalanced. If a difficulty mode can ruin a game, then why hasn't any game ever been ruined by a difficulty mode?

I generally agree with the man, but for whatever reason commenocracy doesn't do it for me. I think mostly because he's really, really overdoing it on the obnoxious duke thing and toning it down a little would go a long way.

It feels like an over the top version of metabombed.

Kerg3927:
In other words, he doesn't respect the other side. The other side doesn't think its opinion is invalid. And it's extremely "assholish" to flippantly dismiss people as elitist assholes just because they think it's okay for a game to reward its players commensurate with their effort and accomplishment.

And when the "other side" mocks and demeans players who can't "get gud" like they are. And say shit like "if you can't play at this level, then go play some of the baby games like all the other plebs" ...somehow THAT kind of discourse is "respecting the other side"?

They act like assholes, and mock the people who don't play the game the way they do, saying things that boil down to "Play like I do, or fuck off." Well sorry, but that IS an asshole, and while they are perfectly free to be an asshole, we are also free to tell them to fuck off with their elitist, assholish behavior.

So yeah, fuck the people who think like that. They are assholes, and if they don't like being called out for their asshole behavior, perhaps they shouldn't post assholish comments about other people and how they should play the game the way they tell them to.

Zhukov:

Kerg3927:
Except that's not the situation here.

Yes it is.

Ubisoft adds a zero-challenge free-roam mode to their newest AC game. Whining shithead gamers throw a tantrum.

Nintendo adds an autopilot mode to a Mario game. Hilarious fuckwit gamers throw a tantrum.

Nintendo adds an assisted driver mode to Mario Kart. Cringing turd gamers throw a tantrum.

That one woman from Bioware (Jennifer Kepler? Hepler? Something like that.) mentions vague idea of a skip combat button. Gatekeeping douchebag gamers throw a tantrum.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Oh god, I forgot about the Mario Kart one. "You can turn on auto steer and auto acceleration and probably win a 50cc Cup without touching the controller, the game is ruined".

I mean, I did it some for novelty's sake, and grinding out some car parts, but it's the 50cc cups. Literal babytown frolic mode. What was even the point of complaining about that? "Oh no, somebody might get all the car parts without working as hard as me"? "Somebody undeserving might see all of the stages"? Who has time for that?

Auto steer exists for the same reason the blue shell does: so that altnameJag's friends will play Mario Kart with altnameJag. Because they don't have fun when I constantly blow them out, and I don't have fun by constantly blowing them out. Auto steer to keep them on the track and blue shells at least give them the ability to dunk on me now and again. Because more options makes for more accessibility, which makes for more aggregate fun.

Look at me, basically the boss monster, arguing for easier difficulty modes. #humblebrag

Some people's kids and their entitlement, I swear.

Ezekiel:
I don't find him funny. He's never been funny. The only time he's funny is when he's playing really bad games, and that's more the game than him.

Soo, why are you watching him then? If you know his stuff is not funny to you... why watch it?

He produced the character of Duke D'la Hardcore for one tiny scene in a couple of previous comment movies and asked in the commments section if people liked the character and, if they did, to SEND him comments so he can take the piss.

So, this is Jim, listening to his fans and enacting the comments they have sent him.

Because, frankly, there are some OTT people out there who think they are the "Elite" on something. Anything that can pop that balloon is OK to me. This isn't supposed to be balanced, this is taking the piss... if you're burned by it maybe sit down and wonder why that is?

Touching on the general discussion here rather than the Jim video (like a few here, I do like Jim, but I cannot bare watching those kind of skits), it is possible to hold the view point not every game needs a difficulty mode and not be an asshole.

Sure, many are assholes. So are many who are opposing that viewpoint. It's not exactly one way, just like most issues you get assholes on both sides...

Some gamers enjoy a challenge, but do not seek it out. Recently I set most games to hard, but I used to ALWAYS go on Normal. At that point in time, all my favourite games were ones that forced me to challenge myself. Games like Kingdom Under Fire or Dark Souls which had no inherent choice of difficulty (KUF technically did, but it was attached to characters, to see all the story you'd need to do them all). Sure, the difficulty of said games can be put in question, but when the game's difficulty is altered by how you approach it rather than the arbitrary numbers the selection you choose make it was always much more compelling to me.

If I never got drawn into those kind of games, I'd probably still play games without bothering to up the difficulty, and maybe wouldn't even play games outside of story driven ones anymore, when I've always been a mechanically driven gamer personally.

Games can pull off difficulty modes well, some of my favourite games also include these, but not every game needs them, and lacking difficulty options can have benefits to the player. Also it's hardly gate keeping. In theory any game should be beatable. If you are unable to, you've just not gotten the hang of it yet or are approaching it wrong, unless it's some ridiculously difficult game. Something like Dark Souls isn't actually that hard if you approach it the right way for instance. Some would argue it's actually an easy game, you just need to get the hang of it. To imply that is meant to be some barrier to entry is kind of inaccurate. The only gate there is people's patience/free time or willingness to adapt, not the game's difficulty.

Besides Jim looking like a giant albino slug I don't get the point of fighting toxicity with more toxicity and wonder if the people who like the video even realize the hypocricy in it as it is made to make them feel morally "superior" for not having the "primitive" wish for harder games.

On difficulty in video games, like everything it seems like it is either: "games should be made so even mentally retarded children can play them without losing" or "games should be balls to the wall hard with no regards to any other parts of the games". The devs should decide however hard the game should be and as long as it's not fake difficulty (meaning you can pass the place with a reasonable amount of training and minimum amount of luck) people shouldn't bitch on it being too hard.

Though I will draw the line in most walking simulators, though games that actually gives choice and require actual thought like Stanley Parable are okay-ish.

Happyninja42:

Kerg3927:
In other words, he doesn't respect the other side. The other side doesn't think its opinion is invalid. And it's extremely "assholish" to flippantly dismiss people as elitist assholes just because they think it's okay for a game to reward its players commensurate with their effort and accomplishment.

And when the "other side" mocks and demeans players who can't "get gud" like they are. And say shit like "if you can't play at this level, then go play some of the baby games like all the other plebs" ...somehow THAT kind of discourse is "respecting the other side"?

They act like assholes, and mock the people who don't play the game the way they do, saying things that boil down to "Play like I do, or fuck off." Well sorry, but that IS an asshole, and while they are perfectly free to be an asshole, we are also free to tell them to fuck off with their elitist, assholish behavior.

So yeah, fuck the people who think like that. They are assholes, and if they don't like being called out for their asshole behavior, perhaps they shouldn't post assholish comments about other people and how they should play the game the way they tell them to.

Another example, golf. A lot of people take golf seriously. They spend hours upon hours practicing. It has a long, proud tradition. It is a game intended to test ones skills and commitment, and it has always been such. Even though when it boils down to it, golf is not all that much different than video games, which have also traditionally been about providing obstacles to test one's skills and dedication.

Suddenly a bunch of non-golfers decide they want to play golf. But they are terrible at it, and they don't want to put in the time to practice and get better. They demand that several more tee boxes be added at various intervals along the course, 75%, 50%, 25%, and even 0% distance from the green. They demand that the greens be designed in such a way that, once you get the ball on the green, you can just press a button and the ball rolls into the hole by itself.

Are the golfers being elitist assholes/twats/pricks/shitheads/fuckwits/turds if they feel like the course and the integrity of the game is being violated? Are they being elitist if they tell the whiners to leave the game alone... play the game the normal way or go play something else?

There are actual elitist assholes out there. People who run down and insult casuals for their badness at games. But many others just want those people to quit demanding changes to the games they love. Games that keep getting dumbed down and watered down more and more because of the whiners. Not everyone who disagrees with your casual, everyone-gets-a-trophy viewpoint is an elitist asshole. And by indiscriminately lumping everyone who disagrees with you together and trashing and insulting them, that makes YOU the asshole, not the other way around.

inu-kun:
Besides Jim looking like a giant albino slug I don't get the point of fighting toxicity with more toxicity and wonder if the people who like the video even realize the hypocricy in it as it is made to make them feel morally "superior" for not having the "primitive" wish for harder games.

On difficulty in video games, like everything it seems like it is either: "games should be made so even mentally retarded children can play them without losing" or "games should be balls to the wall hard with no regards to any other parts of the games". The devs should decide however hard the game should be and as long as it's not fake difficulty (meaning you can pass the place with a reasonable amount of training and minimum amount of luck) people shouldn't bitch on it being too hard.

Though I will draw the line in most walking simulators, though games that actually gives choice and require actual thought like Stanley Parable are okay-ish.

No, it's funny because it's funny to see Jim make fun of a self righteous twat who has head so far up his ass he's giving oral to his small intestine. Trying to make the video an elitist thing is such a stretch I don't have the words to describe it. It's making fun of elitists. Is that inherently hypocritical now? No, no it isn't.

Developers should decide? Yeah, no duh. No one was arguing against that. Jim and others like him are making fun of people who swim up their own assholes at the idea of easier modes. So as much as you want to make it about people bitching that games are too hard, the only people doing anything that would fall under your use of the word are the people freaking out every time developers decide to care about gamers who aren't the self righteous super hard core kind. These people are the ones who have an issue with the dev's decisions.

I don't think easy modes are right for every game. You can craft a certain type of experience by not giving the player an out. I think it would detract from games like Spelunky, where the difficulty is almost oppressive and the game has no qualms about killing you in an instant for a tiny mistake. It gets frustrating, yes, but that makes eventual victory all the more rewarding. If Spelunky had an easy mode, I would have eventually caved and finished the game on easy, ruining the impact of that first victory for myself. Sometimes it's just fun to smash your face against a brick wall until it falls over and if a sledge hammer is sitting there it makes you feel a bit silly to not pick it up.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
A nine minute long video by that guy? I don't wanna watch it. I agree with GamingBrit anyway. He wasn't just talking about Dark Souls.

And your video featured the line "Take the Souls games for example. Those titles forged a community around the difficulty." What?! To beat a Souls game is easy as hell because the games have basically a "very easy" mode built-in. If anything the community was forged around figuring out the mechanics, the secrets, the lore; none of which has anything to do with difficulty. Throwing in a mode with a simple more player HP / less enemy HP takes like 5 minutes to code, you're just changing a couple variables. All games are balanced for a set difficulty anyway. You guys are acting like having say 5 difficulty modes takes 5 times longer to balance; nope, devs just balance "normal" mode and that's it. ANY OPTION for the player is inherently GOOD because if you don't like it, you don't have to use it, the whole point of the other modes is that they are purposefully unbalanced. If a difficulty mode can ruin a game, then why hasn't any game ever been ruined by a difficulty mode?

Dark Souls' "easy mode" IS bad. The AI is dumb as bricks and can't handle multiple opponents. I regretted summoning so much during my first playthrough. If I didn't have that easy way out, I eventually would have dealt with the brick wall myself, which would have been more rewarding. It was so disappointing that when I got to Dark Souls II and III, I didn't summon at all on my initial playthroughs. It's often faster anyway, since the enemy HP is buffed in coop.

Either way, Dark Souls is known for its difficulty, whether you find it hard or not. I'm not gonna talk to you about the question of whether Dark Souls is hard. It doesn't matter what you think. A lot of people find it hard, which is why they came up with the sadistic catch phrase.

Ezekiel:

Captain Marvelous:
Ah, I've seen the video and I loved it. The push back against an easier difficulty setting for games is ridiculous. If a player wants frustration, then they can pick the hardest difficulty and have their fun. If a player wants to enjoy the sights and take in the story, they can pick an easier difficulty. The "other side" wants to keep people from enjoying a game unless they "git gud". "You want to enjoy the game, but it's too hard? Well fuck you!"

Not a fan of difficulty modes in general. Too much guesswork. I've had way, way too many experiences of choosing the wrong difficulty for my skill level. It can be horrible when the game doesn't let you change difficulties mid-game. I'm also disappointed that difficulty options usually end at Easy, Normal, Hard. I wanna be able to customize various parts of the difficulty, like the amount of loot/items, the HUD, enemy numbers, the map, enemy health, population density and more.

Not every game needs an easy mode. Every game doesn't need to be made for everybody. They can play something else. There was this post on Giantbomb (which I regret not bookmarking) of a user emailing different developers and asking them if it would be possible to add an easy mode and what they think of that. Team Meat said that they'd have to redesign over a hundred levels in their new Super Meat Boy game.

Meat Boy's a platformer. You just give Easy Mode a toggle for a bullet time effect and/or enhanced air control. Suddenly you have precise jumping without hyper reflexes. You could go the whole way and just straight up let them fly too, really. Or a Skip Screen option after however many deaths.

There are cases where the idea is kind of gibberish though. To take an easy one, if you aren't playing Tetris for the gameplay, it makes no sense why you're playing it. There's no other element to it, there's no technical end to reach.

KaraFang:

Ezekiel:
I don't find him funny. He's never been funny. The only time he's funny is when he's playing really bad games, and that's more the game than him.

Soo, why are you watching him then? If you know his stuff is not funny to you... why watch it?

He produced the character of Duke D'la Hardcore for one tiny scene in a couple of previous comment movies and asked in the commments section if people liked the character and, if they did, to SEND him comments so he can take the piss.

So, this is Jim, listening to his fans and enacting the comments they have sent him.

Because, frankly, there are some OTT people out there who think they are the "Elite" on something. Anything that can pop that balloon is OK to me. This isn't supposed to be balanced, this is taking the piss... if you're burned by it maybe sit down and wonder why that is?

To hear what he has to say. Though, I unsubscribed from him a long time ago because I stopped caring about what he had to say, which was always obvious stuff that anyone would have a problem with and repeats of previous videos. I realized we had wildly different tastes when he gave the piece of shit Hellblade a gushing review. He's still talking about Hellblade. YouTube still recommends his vids to me, and I sometimes am curious.

Kerg3927:

Happyninja42:

Kerg3927:
In other words, he doesn't respect the other side. The other side doesn't think its opinion is invalid. And it's extremely "assholish" to flippantly dismiss people as elitist assholes just because they think it's okay for a game to reward its players commensurate with their effort and accomplishment.

And when the "other side" mocks and demeans players who can't "get gud" like they are. And say shit like "if you can't play at this level, then go play some of the baby games like all the other plebs" ...somehow THAT kind of discourse is "respecting the other side"?

They act like assholes, and mock the people who don't play the game the way they do, saying things that boil down to "Play like I do, or fuck off." Well sorry, but that IS an asshole, and while they are perfectly free to be an asshole, we are also free to tell them to fuck off with their elitist, assholish behavior.

So yeah, fuck the people who think like that. They are assholes, and if they don't like being called out for their asshole behavior, perhaps they shouldn't post assholish comments about other people and how they should play the game the way they tell them to.

Another example, golf. A lot of people take golf seriously. They spend hours upon hours practicing. It has a long, proud tradition. It is a game intended to test ones skills and commitment, and it has always been such. Even though when it boils down to it, golf is not all that much different than video games, which have also traditionally been about providing obstacles to test one's skills and dedication.

Suddenly a bunch of non-golfers decide they want to play golf. But they are terrible at it, and they don't want to put in the time to practice and get better. They demand that several more tee boxes be added at various intervals along the course, 75%, 50%, 25%, and even 0% distance from the green. They demand that the greens be designed in such a way that, once you get the ball on the green, you can just press a button and the ball rolls into the hole by itself.

Are the golfers being elitist assholes/twats/pricks/shitheads/fuckwits/turds if they feel like the course and the integrity of the game is being violated? Are they being elitist if they tell the whiners to leave the game alone... play the game the normal way or go play something else?

There are actual elitist assholes out there. People who run down and insult casuals for their badness at games. But many others just want those people to quit demanding changes to the games they love. Games that keep getting dumbed down and watered down more and more because of the whiners. Not everyone who disagrees with your casual, everyone-gets-a-trophy viewpoint is an elitist asshole. And by indiscriminately lumping everyone who disagrees with you together and trashing and insulting them, that makes YOU the asshole, not the other way around.

Do professional golfers complain about the existence of crazy golf, a much more watered down and popularised version of 'their' game? No? Its almost like adding an easy version of a game doesn't matter to the people who can play the harder version

Ezekiel:
Edit: Oh, it's explained in the end. Still shitty. I don't know why people take him so seriously when he never respects what the other side has to say. There are a few valid points in there, which he is just totally, condescendingly dismissive of.

The problem with the other side is that a difficulty mode won't hurt them at all if they just don't use it. This is why it is so hard to take this whole thing seriously. I play hard games myself on high difficulty modes and I play hard games without a difficulty mode. I still don't see why I should care that other people play those same games on supereasy mode. I understand why you'd want to play a hard game, how you can be proud of your accomplishments, how finally beating a difficult part is gratifying, etc. But I don't have the need to push that on others. If they don't want that and are still enjoying themselves, more power to them. The people who think easy modes that they won't use will hurt them come across like this guy:

A good example of welcoming an easy mode is Fire Emblem. I remember when casual mode was introduced, people flipped out, saying allies not getting permadeath ruined the fun of FE. Despite the fact that Casual mode was a choice like Smart Steering, they were declaring the franchise dead due to it existing. I argued that Casual mode doesn't remove their permadeath option. And now look, FE lives thanks to adding a casual mode.

To be fair, Jim is notoriously terrible at video games. He admits it himself; terrible reaction time, terrible concentration, problem solving skills, critical thinking and initiative. Its part of the reason his opinions are so contentious. It's like Tommy Weisu as a movie critic.

And like everything he does that duke character is wildly over the top to the point the joke falls. His stand up career was very similar, way over the top voices and jokes repeated over and over because he thinks they're funny, even if no one else does.

lacktheknack:
Oh, y'all need to relax.

You know as well as me that, if devs were "freed" from including difficulty levels, the marginal extra money wouldn't be funneled back into balancing, it would be funneled into bugfixing. Don't fool yourselves.

Plus, difficulty isn't just bigger/smaller numbers. Silent Hill 2/3 had action AND riddle difficulties seperate, and higher action difficulties added cool things. Normal difficulty added the "ability" to fall off edges, and hard difficulty added wall collisions to weapons and running characters. If you sucked, they would offer a new "Beginner" difficulty, and SH3 offered TEN "Extreme" variants that made enemies much more threatening, cut game clocks, slashed your max health, and boosted stamina drain.

The game got literally over a dozen replays out of me entirely via well-managed difficulty options.

Are you implying that bug fixing is useless? I like my game less buggy and from what your saying, difficulty setting = more bug. That's a pretty big tradeoff, I'll take dark soul 4 without difficulty and less bug over dark soul 4 with difficulty setting and more bug any day.

And yeah you can modify the game so that every game setting is different, that's exactly what I don't like. Instead of having 4 different riddle, you have 1 riddle for 4 different difficulty setting, that's a major difference in my book.

And yeah, dev aren't super good at balancing (cause it's really fucking hard), you know what makes it harder? Having to do it across a bunch of setting.

But anyway, I'm glad we're past the "don't play the easy mode, it being include doesn't change your experience" that's progress.

There's plenty of other reason, say you have a game where one enemy is slow but has an attack that kill in one shoot, and you have another type of enemy that are individually weak but swarm the player. If there balance for normal mode, then going to hard mode (enemy with more health and damage) will make these enemy completely unbalance, the slow one will be about as hard (dead in one shoot is dead in one shoot, the attack would be easy to avoid so longer fight makes no difference) and the swarming enemy would be way harder (they'd probably be made with the idea that the player can kill them at range or with AoE, but there increased health makes that disproportionally harder and once the player is swarm they kill I'm far faster). The other situation is they'd be balanced for hard setting, but lowering there difficulty would make the slow stronger enemy much harder for the low level player. So once again the dev have to make decision, which will results in wasted resource or limit on creativity.

Also auto staring... why the hell would anyone buy a game that play itself? Just watch let's play, I just save you 60$. Once again the dev had to put effort into making sure the auto staring worked (no bug, the ai actually know how to steer), this effort could have gone elsewhere (maybe make the opponent AI more capable, leading to more interesting difficulty setting than the extreme rubber banding mario kart has to do).

I actually enjoy his series by viewing it unironically which I think is the best way to react to people being this ignorant. Sure, some of the messages read like they were written by imbeciles but whenever a rational comment is ridiculed I enjoy associating with the character he plays and not the intention behind it.

You can do few worse things to someone than twist their intent into the opposite outcome that they wished it'd produce, after all, so I don't let it bother me and instead have fun with it. Even if you vehemently disagree with him you still shouldn't take yourself so seriously that you fail to appreciate the sheer hilarity he produces.

Meiam:

lacktheknack:
Oh, y'all need to relax.

You know as well as me that, if devs were "freed" from including difficulty levels, the marginal extra money wouldn't be funneled back into balancing, it would be funneled into bugfixing. Don't fool yourselves.

Plus, difficulty isn't just bigger/smaller numbers. Silent Hill 2/3 had action AND riddle difficulties seperate, and higher action difficulties added cool things. Normal difficulty added the "ability" to fall off edges, and hard difficulty added wall collisions to weapons and running characters. If you sucked, they would offer a new "Beginner" difficulty, and SH3 offered TEN "Extreme" variants that made enemies much more threatening, cut game clocks, slashed your max health, and boosted stamina drain.

The game got literally over a dozen replays out of me entirely via well-managed difficulty options.

Are you implying that bug fixing is useless? I like my game less buggy and from what your saying, difficulty setting = more bug. That's a pretty big tradeoff, I'll take dark soul 4 without difficulty and less bug over dark soul 4 with difficulty setting and more bug any day.

Bug-fixing is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Very thoroughly and harshly so. Pumping a little bit of extra into it is typically worthless.

And yeah you can modify the game so that every game setting is different, that's exactly what I don't like. Instead of having 4 different riddle, you have 1 riddle for 4 different difficulty setting, that's a major difference in my book.

And yeah, dev aren't super good at balancing (cause it's really fucking hard), you know what makes it harder? Having to do it across a bunch of setting.

But anyway, I'm glad we're past the "don't play the easy mode, it being include doesn't change your experience" that's progress.

There's plenty of other reason, say you have a game where one enemy is slow but has an attack that kill in one shoot, and you have another type of enemy that are individually weak but swarm the player. If there balance for normal mode, then going to hard mode (enemy with more health and damage) will make these enemy completely unbalance, the slow one will be about as hard (dead in one shoot is dead in one shoot, the attack would be easy to avoid so longer fight makes no difference) and the swarming enemy would be way harder (they'd probably be made with the idea that the player can kill them at range or with AoE, but there increased health makes that disproportionally harder and once the player is swarm they kill I'm far faster). The other situation is they'd be balanced for hard setting, but lowering there difficulty would make the slow stronger enemy much harder for the low level player. So once again the dev have to make decision, which will results in wasted resource or limit on creativity.

This all SOUNDS good until you consider that this is only relevant to games you play, and not to any of the ones I play (puzzle, simulators, story-based horror). In fact, "balance issues" actually are very simple to resolve in the vast majority of genres.

Also auto staring... why the hell would anyone buy a game that play itself? Just watch let's play, I just save you 60$. Once again the dev had to put effort into making sure the auto staring worked (no bug, the ai actually know how to steer), this effort could have gone elsewhere (maybe make the opponent AI more capable, leading to more interesting difficulty setting than the extreme rubber banding mario kart has to do).

No, the effort will go into bugfixing. I just said this.

Once the required features are implemented, then the rest of the project's time and resources go into bugchasing. Stop saying things like "this effort could have gone elsewhere". Any liquified features go into that grand pot of bugs and nowhere else.

And I'd rather skim off the top of bugfixing and use it in other features for broader audience appeal. Deal with it.

lacktheknack:
This all SOUNDS good until you consider that this is only relevant to games you play

So... we're in agreement then, some game will suffer from inclusion of difficulty setting.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Its almost like adding an easy version of a game doesn't matter to the people who can play the harder version

Another example is Magic: The Gathering. in Magic there is a competitive scene and a far larger casual scene, the two don't often meet and when you compare their decks they're basically playing different games. The existence of hardcore tournaments doesn't bother casual players and the existence of casual playgroups doesn't bother competitive players, because neither one is interested in playing the way the other is. In fact the only real friction in Magic between casual and competitive players is in one specific format where there's no real delineation between difficulty or skill levels for the playgroup and those two player types end up playing hugely unsatisfying games against each other.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 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