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

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

EscapistAccount:

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.

Magic is played differently but the way casuals play is definitely inferior if we count how well one does at winning in the game which is the only relevant metric. This being so, it shows that casuals are fine with losing to competitive players and still choose to play the way they do, knowing they're inferior, cause it's simply more fun for them that way.

If we apply this to something like dark souls, the parallel wouldn't be an easy mode but rather people who have fun dying over and over and are satisfied with never getting good enough to beat the game. I think it is a valid thing to suck too much to beat a game yet still enjoy it. This expectation people have that they should be able to beat games and that if they can't there's something wrong with the game, is irrational. They should be more like the casual magic fans and find fun in sub optimal play instead.

Meiam:

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.

Yes, some will.

Not nearly enough to cause the epic stink that people are putting up right now.

The games that would suffer from additional difficulty settings won't get them, and you know it's true.

In one of Jim's videos (I forget which one), he did a skit with the Duke Amiel Du H'ardcore character. A lot of fans expressed interest in seeing the character more often doing similar skits. Jim has since turned it into a weekly series. Basically, Jim and/or his fans will find comments from people around the Internet that express an elitist attitude regarding games, and Jim reads them out as the character. The comments mostly come from one person, as far as I can tell. So it is less Jim going out of his way to make fun of people and more a one-time joke that the fans really, really wanted to see continued.

lacktheknack:
Snippledebomtastic.

Its weird...I find those bringing up the argument of the oh so delicate time and resources of developers incredibly dishonest. Gamers have never cared for the developers time and resources when they demand bigger and better everything, deeper storytelling, better animation, better AI, no copy-paste quests, more choices, more customisation, more multiplayer options, better performance, better level design, better graphics, better controls...better everything! But...more inclusive difficulty options???... WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR DEVELOPERS!!!

These

Games

Are

For

Big

Boys

...

ONLY!!!

What a curious line to draw... wouldn't you say?

Are they only fooling themselves?

Phoenixmgs:

Xsjadoblayde:

I checked out a few of her other songs, she's a real talent especially lyrically. I do wish there was more going on the instrument side, pretty simple on that end. But, overall, I'm definitely digging it, some of the lyrics are damn hilarious.

Yeah, I always felt she could do with a lot more on the instrument side of things, especially percussion. And the song I posted was far from her best, but regardless of what the recipient seemed to think, it was not intending to impress him, quite the opposite in fact. Girls girls girls is a particular personal favourite. :)

Silentpony:
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.

But wait, weren't you the one who gave up on Bloodborne and the other souls games? Whereas Jim has completed them all for review? And you also say anybody's opinion is as good as a critics' especially you're own? Except now it does matter how good you are? Doesn't that now, by your own logic, make your opinion far more contentious? This is all rather confusing.

erttheking:

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

I'll stop saying gatekeeping when it stops being so damn on point. I've yet to see many of these so called legitimate reasons. Most of the time (I said most of the time, so if anyone reading about this feels they didn't say this, I'm not talking about you) it's just people who are pissy that other people aren't playing the games in the exact way they deem appropriate. Oh, and even if they do have legit reasons, it's still gatekeeping. You're just claiming it's justified gatekeeping.

Not that I was just referring to the difficulty, gaming's gatekeeping hardly just stops there. I still remember when people were losing their shit over "fake" gamers.

I can all but guarantee that if the "SoulsBorne" series had a traditional difficulty select or option to skip anything, vs the systems it already has to similar effect if the player uses their brain a bit, it wouldn't have been nearly as well-regarded. I don't remember any of the old Zelda or Mario games having a difficulty select either. It's a breath of fresh air because most games include a variety of modes to accommodate the greatest swath of consumer type, for obvious reasons. Difficulty selects only serve to cheapen and divide the intended experience.

It's an instant turn off seeing a difficulty select to me, especially in story-based games. What kind of story will I get? Will I miss content going the easy route or gain something going the hard way? If it doesn't matter why is it even there, aside from the generically scripted z/y/z value tweaking of bullet sponging, ammo count, health count, etc.

There are already a variety of games out there that forego difficulty selects and succeed in offering a wide range of more dynamic challenge, to the point where perhaps only competitive genres even need such a thing anymore. Hell, even they could probably do without. The way I think of it is, say for fighting games, the AI could be considered the ultimate sparring partner. They respond to you as your skill level dictates. Mash buttons and they'll "know" you don't know what you're doing, but hit them with a decent combo and they'll come back at you with one of their own. This was practically the case, albeit in more scripted form with arcade fighting game towers. They typically never had a difficulty select for obvious reasons (although, MK3 did but in the form of different towers), but with enough effort (and quarters) were still beatable, and it felt great. It shouldn't be any different just because someone buys and owns a home version of the game, where they can try as much as they want for a fixed price vs indefinite.

Why does everything need to be easy and accessible just because people paid for it? If I buy golf clubs and a club membership I wouldn't expect everyone on the course to give me a break because "I'm not good" or "I don't have the time or patience to get good." Same for buying a video game, at a fraction of the cost. Just because it has AI doesn't mean it's obligated to go easy on the player. I'd go so far as to rationalize that there is a direct correlation between difficulty level and player interest level anyways. Why cater more to the least interested demographic (although I already answered this in the first paragraph).

On the other hand, again there are cases where accessibility itself is a challenge for some disabled people. These are special cases which could be accommodated separately, as in the operating system options, not the actual game itself. Offer a God Mode "always on" or extra controller options support, etc.

Xsjadoblayde:

But wait, weren't you the one who gave up on Bloodborne and the other souls games? Whereas Jim has completed them all for review? And you also say anybody's opinion is as good as a critics' especially you're own? Except now it does matter how good you are? Doesn't that now, by your own logic, make your opinion far more contentious? This is all rather confusing.

Hardly. While its true I think the first Dark Souls is a very poorly designed game, I stopped playing Bloodborne because I was bored out of my mind with the endless backtracking.
As far as Jim, and being 'good' at games, its less a skill based critique and more a general competency issue. Jim often is too busy making a cum joke or yammering on about pogs to notice clear on-screen indications and instructions, and then goes on to complain about the lack of direction. Hell he did a video a few days ago called Liquidator and he spends the entire time trying to run through rooms of troops, completely oblivious to the fact he has a gun and is supposed to be shooting. And then complains he doesn't get it.
That's bad gaming. Its not some dumb 'git gud' malarky, but a very clear 'if you're not going to pay attention, don't complain about now knowing whats going on'

Like Dean Takahashi. Not the Cuphead shit, but his Mass Effect experience. Where he got all the way to Virmire without realizing you can level up Shepard and get new abilities, and constantly complained about how hard the game was and how everything seems impossible to do.

Skill is one thing. Paying attention is another.

EscapistAccount:

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.

Well this is all down to the Timmy/Johnny/Spike divide you see in Magic the Gathering (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-03-20), but even then what people don't realise is that the competitive scene impacts the casual scene, and not the other way around. When cards get errata'd it's because of their performance in the competitive scene, because the casuals mostly don't care. But the casuals end up playing with changed cards due to the competitive people, so there is a change. The same happens in Warmachine/Hordes, or 40k, or any other game with a Casual/Competitive split.

I personally don't care about adding/removing difficulty levels if it's the developers choice for the experience they want to craft. Even to the point of adding a "skip content" button, if they want. I ain' gonna skip, if another guy wants to, let him (I would then question why they spent however many dollars on content they skip, but I've bought entire games I've never played so pot->kettle).

Besides, I know enough examples of games where the Easy mode does nothing (Elex, or any other Pisanha Bytes game, I'm looking at you) or where the Easy mode should be renamed "Handholding, Spoonfeeding" mode (Divinity Original Sin 2, I'm looking at you) to know that you should play on Normal (or it's equivalent, whatever name it may have) before you try anything else. It's what they balanced for, it's what will give you the experience the devs "want" you to have. I've got enough nightmares about Hotline Miami 2's bullshit hard mode to even care anymore about difficulty levels at this point.

hanselthecaretaker:
Snip

Soulsborne already has difficulty settings, they're just not blatantly spelled out for you.

And if the ability to turn down the difficulty in a game is enough to make people lose interest in soulsborne, I have to question their enjoyment of it before hand, because it sounds pretty shallow. You don't remember Zelda or Mario having difficulty select? You do know that there was a re release of Ocarina of Time with an increased difficulty right? The Master Quest? And that recent Zelda games on the 3DS have optional hints that weren't in the original games? And that Breath of the Wild has a hard mode? Locked behind a FUCKING PAY WALL, but it has one. As for difficulty settings in Mario games, there have been quite a few. On top of all the recent pick me ups recent games have been giving, with the charity items, easy one ups, and invincibility items. Not all difficulty options come in easy, medium, hard form.

https://www.mariowiki.com/Hard_Mode

Story pretty much never is affected by difficulty. Like...ever. So I really don't know what you're getting at there. Why is it there? Because, you know, not all gamers are on the same skill level and like to tweak it? Some people like super ultra hardcore mode and others like to take it easy? Some like to do both but it depends on the mood that they're in.

You do know that fighting games tend to have difficulty options, right? I don't get your distaste for difficulty levels in any form, but personally I'd rather be able to decide how hard or easy I want a game to be, as opposed to a game that radically flip flops based on the programing in an A.I.

Everything? Nice strawman argument. Please point out where anyone in this thread said that. And no, you can't compare it to IRL golf, because IRL golf and video games work on fundamentally different levels. Games can easily come with difficulty modes, IRL golf can't. There's a correlation between difficulty and player investment? Well that's an argument that falls apart the second that you remember that beating a super hard challenge isn't the be all end all of games, and that there are a multitude of reasons why someone could enjoy a game. The least invested demographic? Ok, this is what I mean when I said gatekeeping. You honestly have no proof that they're the least interesting demographic, and you're acting, with no real basis, that the people who play more hardcore modes are more invested. You're doing this.

erttheking:
You don't remember Zelda or Mario having difficulty select?

Even if they hadn't, its really not hard to create your own. I've actually played through all of 'a link between worlds' without picking up any pieces of heart or heart containers. That actually is more balanced as a hard mode than the shitty hero mode nintendo included. The best part is, my playing the game that way and enjoying it didn't require me to remove the heart mechanics for all other players.

Meiam:
Also auto staring... why the hell would anyone buy a game that play itself? Just watch let's play, I just save you 60$.

What if I sometimes want to play the game and sometimes want to watch it play itself? I've had good fun playing against my friends in super smash bros and then when we were tired of playing ourselves, we would pit the AI's against eachother, playing drinking games based on who would win. Though with mario cart, I would like it if auto-stearing were left off by default.

erttheking:
You're doing this.

Now that is a familiar video. I see that great minds think alike.

Ezekiel:

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.

Then why are you watching him and giving his opinions any meaning to your life? When I don't like what someone is saying and it's not calling for my death I tend to just move along.

I don't really like watching Total Biscuits videos much, I agree with and clash with him on various subjects but he's far too pompous for my liking and seems genuine in that behaviour, but tons of people like, and find him watchable. So what do? Oh yes there's millions of other content creators out there for me to select and choose to entertain me.

I thought you were asking this from a standpoint of 'I usually watch and enjoy Jim so wtf' but now I'm just double confused? He's comedy, he's the jester pointing out the emperor isn't wearing any clothing. You don't HAVE to agree with him or watch him. I agree with him because frankly, if you look at a difficulty selection screen and can't stop yourself from pressing 'easy mode'. Then I have to question if that video game victories are the only validation you get in life, and if so, my that is sad and you have my sympathies. And I play alot of games on the hardest difficulty too. But frankly if I want to make any friends and have them over, I'll introduce them with an easier version of the game gladly. Challenge is a spectrum, not all games do it right, but most do and having that spectrum represented in some way via selection is fine by me.

But the people Jim is lampooning here are making baseless statements, they aren't arguing the counter argument in anyway other than pure subjective smugness. And that, to me, is worth mockery in a powdered wig and makeup with embellished county estate lord accents for a giggle. Because if he didn't do it, I fucking would if presented the chance.

Phoenixmgs:

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

This video is stupid and I'll explain why for every step:
Step 1+2+5: use magic. This is like saying that every game has a hard mode by putting a blindfold and doing a speedrun, the point about difficulty selection is that you don't lock entire parts of the game for it.
step 3+7+8: Get early weapon. Won't really help besides the start, Dark Souls doesn't really have ultimate weapons or armor.
step 4: An equivilant to "tell your older brother to beat it for you", you aren't really playing the game as much as force your ineptitude on someone else.
step 6: Munchkin, also see 3.

But basically it's ridiculous to look at completely blocking massive parts of the game as an "easy difficulty".

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

You're wrong. Try and prove it.

inu-kun:

Phoenixmgs:

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

This video is stupid and I'll explain why for every step:
Step 1+2+5: use magic. This is like saying that every game has a hard mode by putting a blindfold and doing a speedrun, the point about difficulty selection is that you don't lock entire parts of the game for it.
step 3+7+8: Get early weapon. Won't really help besides the start, Dark Souls doesn't really have ultimate weapons or armor.
step 4: An equivilant to "tell your older brother to beat it for you", you aren't really playing the game as much as force your ineptitude on someone else.
step 6: Munchkin, also see 3.

But basically it's ridiculous to look at completely blocking massive parts of the game as an "easy difficulty".

My bigger issue with this is that if the game doesn't have actual menues for difficultly selection but just entails a playstyle that makes beating the game easy, this doesn't mean that the playstyle is a difficulty setting. It just means that the game is easy. Full stop.

People not playing that way are choosing to put more challenge on themselves than they need and since the game is already easy there need not be a lower difficulty setting either.

Pseudonym:

Meiam:
Also auto staring... why the hell would anyone buy a game that play itself? Just watch let's play, I just save you 60$.

What if I sometimes want to play the game and sometimes want to watch it play itself? I've had good fun playing against my friends in super smash bros and then when we were tired of playing ourselves, we would pit the AI's against eachother, playing drinking games based on who would win. Though with mario cart, I would like it if auto-stearing were left off by default.

Didn't the wii U come with a browser? Open browser, go to youtube or twitch, watch games.

And for the EC "dark soul has difficulty" yeah it's kinda bogus claim that makes no sense. It doesn't have a difficulty setting, it has features, some of which can make the game easier. More than that, you know why most of those are in? Because the game is hard and including mechanic/feature that makes the game easier for the player makes for a richer experience. Those features are interesting because the game lack a difficulty setting. I might as well say that people who want an easy option in dark soul should stop whining cause it already has one, you can just grind for soul in easy area to increase your level. If anything this EC argument only reinforce the position that game should avoid difficulty setting because rather than including interesting mechanic to allow the player to take on hard challenge the dev just slap an easy mode in and call it a day.

inu-kun:

Phoenixmgs:

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

This video is stupid and I'll explain why for every step:
Step 1+2+5: use magic. This is like saying that every game has a hard mode by putting a blindfold and doing a speedrun, the point about difficulty selection is that you don't lock entire parts of the game for it.
step 3+7+8: Get early weapon. Won't really help besides the start, Dark Souls doesn't really have ultimate weapons or armor.
step 4: An equivilant to "tell your older brother to beat it for you", you aren't really playing the game as much as force your ineptitude on someone else.
step 6: Munchkin, also see 3.

But basically it's ridiculous to look at completely blocking massive parts of the game as an "easy difficulty".

1+2+5 How is using the class and the style of combat that is clearly proven to be better and easier equivalent to imposing penalties on you outside the game world. Also it's hardly locking yourself out, because the way Dark Souls works, its easily to be able to dip into everything, regardless of how you start out. If you have a good melee character, you can easily level to get some faith or magic based attacks. That's how my pure warrior started getting miracles in the first game.

3+7+8. Ring of Life Protection is something that goes up in viability as the game progresses, considering the repair rate for it stays at a flat 3,000 souls while you're heading into areas that give you more and more souls, and Dan flat out says the armor can be used for the rest of the game.

4. I summon people to help me in boss fights all the time. Everyone does it. It makes the game easier and, ironically, more fun. Oh, and a lot of it is NPCs. And forcing your ineptitude onto other people? Speaking as someone who loved to spend his time being summoned to help other players, quite a few people in Dark Souls enjoy helping others who can't beat bosses on their own. There's a reason there are entire in game covenants dedicated to it.

6. Yeah, it's Dark Souls. Hardly anything new.

Nothing's getting blocked, as I explained above.

Worgen:

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

You're wrong. Try and prove it.

What a ridiculous response. It's like you just stepped into this thread and ignored the last sixty posts.

RaikuFA:
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.

That's probably the worst example to take cause the newest games have the poorest writing and half of the cast have 'i dont die i run away' death quotes even on classic which is objectively affecting the classic mode. I just wanted to come in here and say that as someone with a fire emblem avatar

Ezekiel:

Worgen:

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

You're wrong. Try and prove it.

What a ridiculous response. It's like you just stepped into this thread and ignored the last sixty posts.

Yep, sum up your reasoning in a couple sentences.

Meiam:

Pseudonym:

Meiam:
Also auto staring... why the hell would anyone buy a game that play itself? Just watch let's play, I just save you 60$.

What if I sometimes want to play the game and sometimes want to watch it play itself? I've had good fun playing against my friends in super smash bros and then when we were tired of playing ourselves, we would pit the AI's against eachother, playing drinking games based on who would win. Though with mario cart, I would like it if auto-stearing were left off by default.

Didn't the wii U come with a browser? Open browser, go to youtube or twitch, watch games.

Why? I liked watching the AI duke it out and getting to decide which AI's would get to fight next. Some twitch player won't get me that. Why should I stop using a feature I like and do something else?

erttheking:

inu-kun:

Phoenixmgs:

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

This video is stupid and I'll explain why for every step:
Step 1+2+5: use magic. This is like saying that every game has a hard mode by putting a blindfold and doing a speedrun, the point about difficulty selection is that you don't lock entire parts of the game for it.
step 3+7+8: Get early weapon. Won't really help besides the start, Dark Souls doesn't really have ultimate weapons or armor.
step 4: An equivilant to "tell your older brother to beat it for you", you aren't really playing the game as much as force your ineptitude on someone else.
step 6: Munchkin, also see 3.

But basically it's ridiculous to look at completely blocking massive parts of the game as an "easy difficulty".

1+2+5 How is using the class and the style of combat that is clearly proven to be better and easier equivalent to imposing penalties on you outside the game world. Also it's hardly locking yourself out, because the way Dark Souls works, its easily to be able to dip into everything, regardless of how you start out. If you have a good melee character, you can easily level to get some faith or magic based attacks. That's how my pure warrior started getting miracles in the first game.

3+7+8. Ring of Life Protection is something that goes up in viability as the game progresses, considering the repair rate for it stays at a flat 3,000 souls while you're heading into areas that give you more and more souls, and Dan flat out says the armor can be used for the rest of the game.

4. I summon people to help me in boss fights all the time. Everyone does it. It makes the game easier and, ironically, more fun. Oh, and a lot of it is NPCs. And forcing your ineptitude onto other people? Speaking as someone who loved to spend his time being summoned to help other players, quite a few people in Dark Souls enjoy helping others who can't beat bosses on their own. There's a reason there are entire in game covenants dedicated to it.

6. Yeah, it's Dark Souls. Hardly anything new.

Nothing's getting blocked, as I explained above.

1+2+5 But you are not playing with any melee weapon which is a massive part of the game combat system, it is exactly imposing penalties on yourself. If a shooting game had a difficulty setting that said I can't use 90% of the (unique) guns I'd say the devs fucked up.

3+7+8 And? Dark Souls is not a game where equipment get you gud.

4 No, not everyone does it. If the battle is too hard just say it's too hard for yoyu rather than pretend "everyone does it" as if no one likes to play solo. Your "fun" is not necessarily another people's "fun".
[yotube=WbR7MYGPR6c]

A lot is getting blocked, the entire existence of close quarters combat, it might shock you but melee exists in the franchise.

Worgen:

Ezekiel:

Worgen:

You're wrong. Try and prove it.

What a ridiculous response. It's like you just stepped into this thread and ignored the last sixty posts.

Yep, sum up your reasoning in a couple sentences.

No. Not for you. Read posts 18, 19, 38, 55, 57, 59, 67 and 76. Before you bring up the fact that most of these aren't my responses, remember that I said "people" have their reasons. Read the thread or get out.

Apologies if I missed someone.

kenu12345:
That's probably the worst example to take cause the newest games have the poorest writing and half of the cast have 'i dont die i run away' death quotes even on classic which is objectively affecting the classic mode. I just wanted to come in here and say that as someone with a fire emblem avatar

Why do those points about the classic mode undermine the argument that the inclusion of the easier setting doesn't affect classic? They're two entirely separate issues.

OT: Anybody bringing up Jim's ability to play games as an unironic attempt at rebuttal of a video lampooning elitist mindsets, has vindicated his point endlessly.

Silvanus:

kenu12345:
That's probably the worst example to take cause the newest games have the poorest writing and half of the cast have 'i dont die i run away' death quotes even on classic which is objectively affecting the classic mode. I just wanted to come in here and say that as someone with a fire emblem avatar

Why do those points about the classic mode undermine the argument that the inclusion of the easier setting doesn't affect classic? They're two entirely separate issues.

OT: Anybody bringing up Jim's ability to play games as an unironic attempt at rebuttal of a video lampooning elitist mindsets, has vindicated his point endlessly.

Basically, while normally you'd have a gut wrenching good bye with a dying hero, now you just get a much less severe line instead which diminishes the impact of a death. They should have done unique quotes for classic mode.

Ezekiel:
No. Not for you. Read posts 18, 19, 38, 55, 57, 59, 67 and 76. Before you bring up the fact that most of these aren't my responses, remember that I said "people" have their reasons. Read the thread or get out.

Hmm. Post 18 (which is you) didn't raise a problem with the existence of difficulty levels, it raised a problem with lack of ability to change difficulty level mid-game and with lack of fine-tuning of difficulty levels. If anything, it's asking for more difficulty level options. Following that line, your complaint is that you'd rather own a game you aren't good enough to play than one you have to restart to set the correct difficulty level. I haven't read the other posts you noted because I feel you misrepresented what post 18 said. I do agree that you should be able to change difficult mid-game.

Ezekiel:

Worgen:

Ezekiel:
What a ridiculous response. It's like you just stepped into this thread and ignored the last sixty posts.

Yep, sum up your reasoning in a couple sentences.

No. Not for you. Read posts 18, 19, 38, 55, 57, 59, 67 and 76. Before you bring up the fact that most of these aren't my responses, remember that I said "people" have their reasons. Read the thread or get out.

Apologies if I missed someone.

No, you said people had legitimate reasons for not wanting an easy mode. Defend your statement. Doesn't matter if you are agreeing with someone else, defend why you think they are right.

Silvanus:

kenu12345:
That's probably the worst example to take cause the newest games have the poorest writing and half of the cast have 'i dont die i run away' death quotes even on classic which is objectively affecting the classic mode. I just wanted to come in here and say that as someone with a fire emblem avatar

Why do those points about the classic mode undermine the argument that the inclusion of the easier setting doesn't affect classic? They're two entirely separate issues.

OT: Anybody bringing up Jim's ability to play games as an unironic attempt at rebuttal of a video lampooning elitist mindsets, has vindicated his point endlessly.

Basically what Drieko said, the writing around the easier mode made the writing in classic mode noticeably worse on top of other questionably choices in the newer fire emblems. All I am saying is is that its a poor example to bring up to say 'hey see see it doesnt effect anything' cause it did on top of everything else

Baffle2:

Ezekiel:
No. Not for you. Read posts 18, 19, 38, 55, 57, 59, 67 and 76. Before you bring up the fact that most of these aren't my responses, remember that I said "people" have their reasons. Read the thread or get out.

Hmm. Post 18 (which is you) didn't raise a problem with the existence of difficulty levels, it raised a problem with lack of ability to change difficulty level mid-game and with lack of fine-tuning of difficulty levels. If anything, it's asking for more difficulty level options. Following that line, your complaint is that you'd rather own a game you aren't good enough to play than one you have to restart to set the correct difficulty level. I haven't read the other posts you noted because I feel you misrepresented what post 18 said. I do agree that you should be able to change difficult mid-game.

Read the second half of post 18, where Team Meat explained why their game doesn't have an easy mode. Granted, I don't have the quote, so it doesn't mean much. Like I said, I regret not bookmarking that Giantbomb thread. Do I seem like a liar?

Phoenixmgs:

Xsjadoblayde:

I checked out a few of her other songs, she's a real talent especially lyrically. I do wish there was more going on the instrument side, pretty simple on that end. But, overall, I'm definitely digging it, some of the lyrics are damn hilarious.

I liked it, but seeing some of their other videos they're doing that thing I don't like where they fetishize mental illness Harley Quinn/Sucker Punch style, whilst defending it by pleading irony.

In regards to OP, Jim is lambasting the people who get up in arms when someone changes games (because games are 100% perfect the way they are and any adjustment for the sake of other people, however little effect it has on me, is terrrrible).

Dreiko:

Basically, while normally you'd have a gut wrenching good bye with a dying hero, now you just get a much less severe line instead which diminishes the impact of a death. They should have done unique quotes for classic mode.

Yup, but this isn't relevant to whether the inclusion of a separate easier mode affects classic or not.

kenu12345:
Basically what Drieko said, the writing around the easier mode made the writing in classic mode noticeably worse on top of other questionably choices in the newer fire emblems. All I am saying is is that its a poor example to bring up to say 'hey see see it doesnt effect anything' cause it did on top of everything else

Why do you believe that the inclusion of a separate easy mode is the reason the writing changed across the board? That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption.

Even if true, then your issue isn't with the inclusion of an easy mode in principle. Had they included an easy mode but kept classic-mode dialogue referring to death, this wouldn't be an issue.

Silvanus:

Dreiko:

Basically, while normally you'd have a gut wrenching good bye with a dying hero, now you just get a much less severe line instead which diminishes the impact of a death. They should have done unique quotes for classic mode.

Yup, but this isn't relevant to whether the inclusion of a separate easier mode affects classic or not.

kenu12345:
Basically what Drieko said, the writing around the easier mode made the writing in classic mode noticeably worse on top of other questionably choices in the newer fire emblems. All I am saying is is that its a poor example to bring up to say 'hey see see it doesnt effect anything' cause it did on top of everything else

Why do you believe that the inclusion of a separate easy mode is the reason the writing changed across the board? That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption.

Even if true, then your issue isn't with the inclusion of an easy mode in principle. Had they included an easy mode but kept classic-mode dialogue referring to death, this wouldn't be an issue.

kenu12345:
All I am saying is is that its a poor example to bring up to say 'hey see see it doesnt effect anything' cause it did on top of everything else

Probably would help if you actually read instead of trying to prove your point when someone isn't even arguing with you. I have no issue with difficulty modes

hanselthecaretaker:

I can all but guarantee that if the "SoulsBorne" series had a traditional difficulty select or option to skip anything, vs the systems it already has to similar effect if the player uses their brain a bit, it wouldn't have been nearly as well-regarded. I don't remember any of the old Zelda or Mario games having a difficulty select either. It's a breath of fresh air because most games include a variety of modes to accommodate the greatest swath of consumer type, for obvious reasons. Difficulty selects only serve to cheapen and divide the intended experience.

It's an instant turn off seeing a difficulty select to me, especially in story-based games. What kind of story will I get? Will I miss content going the easy route or gain something going the hard way? If it doesn't matter why is it even there, aside from the generically scripted z/y/z value tweaking of bullet sponging, ammo count, health count, etc.

Options are options, and barring poor implementation, can only add to a product or experience.

Old Mario doesn't have a difficulty selector, but you could grab the 1ups (or outright farm them in SNES and onward), play 1 person in 2 player for extra tries, use the warp zones, etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have plenty of 1 life speedrunner types just by doing a quick youtube search. The "standard" would end up in the middle somewhere with someone doing all 32 levels in order regularly.

To take something with actual difficulty selects. Guitar Hero has had Easy mode (which in most of them straight up can't be failed) all the way to Experts. Rock Band at one point mentioned that the score data indicated the regular average person was playing Hard out of the 4.

Dark Souls goes back to the less explicit methods, but there's pretty obvious difficulty options available with summons, co-opping, different builds and the like. Right out the gate you're presented with an obvious Hard mode if you pick Depraved to have no starting gear. With the extreme of beating the game at level with a broken sword and no armor, which is a testament to the design that thats (Arguably) feasible.

The spot where shifting the difficulty upsets the game is when its mixed with multiplayer usually. For Honor or Mortal Kombats faction things have rewards, and having the AI stuff count there could undermine the system as people spam out easy mode stuff while players at the higher tier take longer to do hard mode stuff (I have no idea how the scoring system works or if its balanced around that). If you have the fighting game or MOBA where the Vs AI is essentially just the tutorial course for online play, then having the AI ease off just gives a terrible impression of the game when the player defeats the training run and suddenly hits a 3000x difficulty spike online against people.

Xsjadoblayde:

lacktheknack:
Snippledebomtastic.

Its weird...I find those bringing up the argument of the oh so delicate time and resources of developers incredibly dishonest. Gamers have never cared for the developers time and resources when they demand bigger and better everything, deeper storytelling, better animation, better AI, no copy-paste quests, more choices, more customisation, more multiplayer options, better performance, better level design, better graphics, better controls...better everything! But...more inclusive difficulty options???... WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR DEVELOPERS!!!

Actually, they get mad about more inclusive anything. Much as they might claim they want "deeper storytelling", as soon as that means they're forced to look at a woman or a person of color or, heavens forbid, someone who is gay or transgender, well, that's just the social justice police forcing these poor developers to be "politically correct". Everyone knows that they wouldn't ever willingly choose to write characters like that.

Ezekiel:
[quote="Baffle2" post="9.1024610.24144727"]Read the second half of post 18, where Team Meat explained why their game doesn't have an easy mode. Granted, I don't have the quote, so it doesn't mean much. Like I said, I regret not bookmarking that Giantbomb thread. Do I seem like a liar?

I did read it, and didn't doubt its veracity. I've only played a bit of SMB, but it seems a niche item to kick up a fuss about, and too niche to use for your line of logic here (that is, I'd need more mainstream examples to consider this an issue).

Not suggesting you're a liar (though not agreeing you aren't either, just not relevant in this case), but my point on your post is that you were asking for more difficulty options, not fewer.

kenu12345:
Probably would help if you actually read instead of trying to prove your point when someone isn't even arguing with you. I have no issue with difficulty modes

Coolio. I'd still like to know why Fire Emblem is a poor example of casual mode implementation, when the issue you brought up isn't necessarily related to the casual mode at all.

It kinda depends now doesn't it?

Assuming that Devs make their best effort to ensure that everyone can be happy with the results it obviously isn't going to be a issue to anyone but a elitist.

But any reasonible Gamer that actually knows anything about how Devs and Publishers ACTUALLY do things would have to admit that for the most part they won't put that kind of effort in but try to find the easiest possible solution which will ultimately be useless for atleast one demographic.

Either you'll get Games focusing entirely on the pure numbers game which wouldn't adress difficjlty based on other factors or they'll start avoiding difficulty outside of pure numbers.

Both would suck, so it's reasonible to be cautious in ones approach to the subject.

 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