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

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

Silvanus:

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.

As said, it wasn't purely casual mode but that mode did lower writing standards for death quotes, something that was always I feel pretty strong in previous games. On top of half the cast being technically unkillable even on classic for no apparent reason, alot of death quotes were rather lack luster being near identical. Overall writing quality was brought down due to that and a few other things that i feel are wrong with fates and awakening but that's a conversation for another day that wouldn't fit into this conversation.

Baffle2:
just not relevant in this case

Well, here it is anyway:

https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/skipping-bosses-and-removing-all-difficulties-from-1814954/?page=3#js-message-8708134

-Team Meat: Depends on the game. There won't be an "easy mode" of Super Meat Boy...only a harder mode...and that's the dark world.

-Me: Care to elaborate. There's quite the debate about artistic intent on dev side, in my community. If game is designed with easy/hard from get go, would you compromise intended difficulty design for sake of better designed easy mode?

TM: It's a cost to benefit ratio thing. Making an easier Meat Boy means remaking hundreds of levels. That doesn't make sense for Meat Boy because Meat Boy is a platformer that's meant to be hard...so it doesn't fit the design to make it easy, it fits the design to make it hard which is why there's a dark world. Other games, it's up to them. If they feel it makes sense to do an easy mode, more power to them. If they do it and they feel it's compromising their vision...then they shouldn't be doing it..I don't know why anyone would do that if they felt that way so it sorta feels like a a complete non-issue to me. TLDR; Make the game you want.

Elitist gatekeepers will do what they do best. Gatekeeping, screeching for validation and generally serve as a reminder that the "gaming community" can be bloody embarrassing.

God forbid that anyone step beyond themselves and consider that other people would like to enjoy an entertainment medium without having reached an arbitrary skill level.
Some players might dislike certain gameplay sections yet they still want to get invested/immersed in the story/setting.
There are people with physical ailments/disabilities that might prevent them from playing optimally or for long periods of time.

If a few twats, who attach their ego to their gaming accomplishments (snrk!), refuse to practice some self-restraint and merely choose their preferred difficulty settings/self-imposed challenges...maybe, just maybe, these twats can still enjoy the entertainment product without feeling the need to come down on others.

You have everything to gain by allowing your game to be more accessible. And when I say accessible, you don't have to compromise the intended experience for the intended demographic. Give the player a choice. This is not a black or white situation, there is a middle ground for all parties involved. If the game permits it, work on customizable difficulty. Best of both worlds.

Xsjadoblayde:
These

Games

Are

For

Big

Boys

Yep. Absolutely nothing wrong with some games being like that.

I play mostly mature games. What is the ESRB slogan? Rated M for Mature?

Maybe that's the solution to this. Just give any games that don't have easy modes or skip buttons a Mature rating. With the understanding that "Mature" means that the gamer is expected to be old enough to have learned the fundamental life lessons that:

1) You don't always get everything you want, no matter how much you whine, and you are not entitled to anything; and

2) People who put forth more effort to become successful at something typically receive better rewards than people who don't want to put forth any effort, and if you don't like that, tough shit, get over it.

So if you are not mature, you can just look at the rating and instantly know that the game is not for you and you should probably play something else with a lower rating...

image

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

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.

Wrong. You get a sword as a mage. You need to use it. You don't have enough charges or attunement slots to utterly ignore it. Beating the game without using a mage's sword is physically impossible.

Who cares? Git Gud can go die in a fire.

Oh I'm sorry, hundreds of thousands of players do it but not literally everyone. Happy now? Can we stop pretending summoning isn't a huge part of Dark Souls? Your fun isn't someone else's fun, where was that mindset when you were talking smack about people who use summons? Or the concept of playing mage? And what does it have to do with whet I said anyway?

I've already pointed out how that isn't the case.

Kerg3927:

Xsjadoblayde:
These

Games

Are

For

Big

Boys

Yep. Absolutely nothing wrong with some games being like that.

I play mostly mature games. What is the ESRB slogan? Rated M for Mature?

Maybe that's the solution to this. Just give any games that don't have easy modes or skip buttons a Mature rating. With the understanding that "Mature" means that the gamer is expected to be old enough to have learned the fundamental life lessons that:

1) You don't always get everything you want, no matter how much you whine, and you are not entitled to anything; and

2) People who put forth more effort to become successful at something typically receive better rewards than people who don't want to put forth any effort, and if you don't like that, tough shit, get over it.

So if you are not mature, you can just look at the rating and instantly know that the game is not for you and you should probably play something else with a lower rating...

image

Thing is most M rated games peddle the type of maturity that is concocted in a 13 year old's imagination, usually entailing a lot of gore, rudeness and Vanilla sexual content while a lot of BIG BOY GAMES tend to have lower age ratings due to having less questionable content and deriving their maturity through mechanical depth.

We could, however, have a separate rating for skill level requirements to play the game in the way it is intended. Something like an e-peen counter perhaps, where harder games add more to your e-peen rating. Think of it like trophies and achievements but more grown up.

Rip Van Rabbit:
Elitist gatekeepers will do what they do best. Gatekeeping, screeching for validation and generally serve as a reminder that the "gaming community" can be bloody embarrassing.

God forbid that anyone step beyond themselves and consider that other people would like to enjoy an entertainment medium without having reached an arbitrary skill level.
Some players might dislike certain gameplay sections yet they still want to get invested/immersed in the story/setting.
There are people with physical ailments/disabilities that might prevent them from playing optimally or for long periods of time.

If a few twats, who attach their ego to their gaming accomplishments (snrk!), refuse to practice some self-restraint and merely choose their preferred difficulty settings/self-imposed challenges...maybe, just maybe, these twats can still enjoy the entertainment product without feeling the need to come down on others.

You have everything to gain by allowing your game to be more accessible. And when I say accessible, you don't have to compromise the intended experience for the intended demographic. Give the player a choice. This is not a black or white situation, there is a middle ground for all parties involved. If the game permits it, work on customizable difficulty. Best of both worlds.

But do you seriously believe thats what most Devs will do or is it pie in the sky reasoning to feel better about yourself for being inclusive?

Look, if it literally doesn't effect my experience of the game, I don't care. But ya know, we don't stop making Movies because blind people exist. So is life.

So, really this isn't anywhere near as clear cut as some people are acting.

Games should be inclusive...within reason. The rest of us shouldn't end up with a worse experience for the sake of the figmental tiny amount of one-armed gamers for instance.

kenu12345:

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

That's not the point I'm making. Because more people were able to buy the games because there was an option for permadeath, they were less scared to get it which resulted in more sales which means FE is a money maker.

Blame the writers/devs for being lazy with death quotes.

RaikuFA:

kenu12345:

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

That's not the point I'm making. Because more people were able to buy the games because there was an option for permadeath, they were less scared to get it which resulted in more sales which means FE is a money maker.

Blame the writers/devs for being lazy with death quotes.

Correlation does not mean causation. Awakening was more marketed, on the 3ds, and other such things that I shouldn't mention. Not to mention that you just brush off the fact that the mode could have had any effect when it clearly did. You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far. You gave a poor example. I would have said something like Ninja Gaiden or such

Fischgopf:

Rip Van Rabbit:
...

You have everything to gain by allowing your game to be more accessible. And when I say accessible, you don't have to compromise the intended experience for the intended demographic. Give the player a choice. This is not a black or white situation, there is a middle ground for all parties involved. If the game permits it, work on customizable difficulty. Best of both worlds.

But do you seriously believe thats what most Devs will do or is it pie in the sky reasoning to feel better about yourself for being inclusive?

Look, if it literally doesn't effect my experience of the game, I don't care. But ya know, we don't stop making Movies because blind people exist. So is life.

So, really this isn't anywhere near as clear cut as some people are acting.

Games should be inclusive...within reason. The rest of us shouldn't end up with a worse experience for the sake of the figmental tiny amount of one-armed gamers for instance.

I believe I addressed your point in my last paragraph and I didn't advocate for forcing a worse experience, so I don't appreciate words being put into my mouth.
The core experience does not need to be altered for the intended audience -- customisable difficulty was one option I mentioned as a potential solution for unintended audiences, a potential middle-ground to bridge the gap between gamers of different skill/interest levels.

I do agree with you that a game's difficulty/core experience shouldn't be bent to one extreme or another. (I already warned against black and white thinking.) Within reason, definitely. That kind of thinking is just going to lead to alienating one side while appeasing others.

My stance is that allowing more choice going into the experience can be a good thing. Whether devs should adopt this approach, well, that's not my call. Some experiences were meant to function in a certain manner. That's not a bad thing. Giving more choices to players of various skill levels? That shouldn't be a bad thing either.

My only issue is with the condescending attitude surrounding the defense against inclusiveness.

There isn't an easy solution to this. It should definitely function on a case-by-case basis. But I feel that there can be nuanced solutions to the implementation of accessible modes.

kenu12345:

RaikuFA:

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

That's not the point I'm making. Because more people were able to buy the games because there was an option for permadeath, they were less scared to get it which resulted in more sales which means FE is a money maker.

Blame the writers/devs for being lazy with death quotes.

Correlation does not mean causation. Awakening was more marketed, on the 3ds, and other such things that I shouldn't mention. Not to mention that you just brush off the fact that the mode could have had any effect when it clearly did. You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far. You gave a poor example. I would have said something like Ninja Gaiden or such

I remember commercials for the original and Awakening. I avoided the original when I heard permadeath. When I heard there was an option to remove permadeath I finally bought it. If they remade the others like Echoes with Permadeath removed. Hell, I like Echoes the most out of all three.

RaikuFA:

kenu12345:

RaikuFA:

That's not the point I'm making. Because more people were able to buy the games because there was an option for permadeath, they were less scared to get it which resulted in more sales which means FE is a money maker.

Blame the writers/devs for being lazy with death quotes.

Correlation does not mean causation. Awakening was more marketed, on the 3ds, and other such things that I shouldn't mention. Not to mention that you just brush off the fact that the mode could have had any effect when it clearly did. You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far. You gave a poor example. I would have said something like Ninja Gaiden or such

I remember commercials for the original and Awakening. I avoided the original when I heard permadeath. When I heard there was an option to remove permadeath I finally bought it. If they remade the others like Echoes with Permadeath removed. Hell, I like Echoes the most out of all three.

The commercials never mentioned permadeath as far as I remember

kenu12345:

RaikuFA:

kenu12345:
Correlation does not mean causation. Awakening was more marketed, on the 3ds, and other such things that I shouldn't mention. Not to mention that you just brush off the fact that the mode could have had any effect when it clearly did. You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far. You gave a poor example. I would have said something like Ninja Gaiden or such

I remember commercials for the original and Awakening. I avoided the original when I heard permadeath. When I heard there was an option to remove permadeath I finally bought it. If they remade the others like Echoes with Permadeath removed. Hell, I like Echoes the most out of all three.

The commercials never mentioned permadeath as far as I remember

I don't think they did either but I remember them saying it in Nintendo Power when I was still subbed.

Ezekiel:
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.

You're mad that you don't have the willpower to avoid such temptations? And, btw, MGO2 community coined the "git gud" catch phrase, an actually hard game.

If difficulty modes can ruin a game, I'm sure there's at least 1 example across thousands of video games where a difficulty mode has ruined a game. Please list such an example and you'll automatically win the argument.

Meiam:
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.

Video game devs suck at balancing games. Again, just look to the PvP side of any Souls game or 99% of shooters. Also, balancing games isn't really fucking hard. Board game devs balance games so much better it's not even funny and the games feature much more complicated mechanics to boot. Combat is one of the simplest things to balance. Souls already has what that whole last paragraph you're going on about with it's NG+ modes. The whole point of easy and hard modes is that they are supposed to be unbalanced.

kenu12345:

Silvanus:

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.

As said, it wasn't purely casual mode but that mode did lower writing standards for death quotes, something that was always I feel pretty strong in previous games. On top of half the cast being technically unkillable even on classic for no apparent reason, alot of death quotes were rather lack luster being near identical. Overall writing quality was brought down due to that and a few other things that i feel are wrong with fates and awakening but that's a conversation for another day that wouldn't fit into this conversation.

kenu12345:
Correlation does not mean causation. . . . You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far.

You can correlate a lack of permanent death with what you consider to be less meaningful dialogue, but you need to be able to substantiate that claim if you want to say that it is the reason "overall writing quality was brought down". And unless you have access to the scripts for the game and know all the things the writers did throughout the development of it, I'm pretty sure you can't actually substantiate that claim. If you want to argue in favor of your position, perhaps you should point to examples of writing in the game which stand far above the regular standard, to use as a counterpoint against this particular dialogue you seem to find objectionable. Evidence of highly varied writing quality within the game itself will provide much better backing support than "casuals ruined the writing!" Especially since if you believe that the writing quality of the entire game is lower than prior titles, that contradicts the idea that an easy mode difficulty is the reason behind it. There isn't really any connection between the quality of a game's writing and its difficulty.

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, video game writing doesn't get "dumbed down" in accordance with any perceived "dumbing down" of mechanics.

shrekfan246:

kenu12345:

Silvanus:

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.

As said, it wasn't purely casual mode but that mode did lower writing standards for death quotes, something that was always I feel pretty strong in previous games. On top of half the cast being technically unkillable even on classic for no apparent reason, alot of death quotes were rather lack luster being near identical. Overall writing quality was brought down due to that and a few other things that i feel are wrong with fates and awakening but that's a conversation for another day that wouldn't fit into this conversation.

kenu12345:
Correlation does not mean causation. . . . You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far.

You can correlate a lack of permanent death with what you consider to be less meaningful dialogue, but you need to be able to substantiate that claim if you want to say that it is the reason "overall writing quality was brought down". And unless you have access to the scripts for the game and know all the things the writers did throughout the development of it, I'm pretty sure you can't actually substantiate that claim. If you want to argue in favor of your position, perhaps you should point to examples of writing in the game which stand far above the regular standard, to use as a counterpoint against this particular dialogue you seem to find objectionable. Evidence of highly varied writing quality within the game itself will provide much better backing support than "casuals ruined the writing!" Especially since if you believe that the writing quality of the entire game is lower than prior titles, that contradicts the idea that an easy mode difficulty is the reason behind it. There isn't really any connection between the quality of a game's writing and its difficulty.

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, video game writing doesn't get "dumbed down" in accordance with any perceived "dumbing down" of mechanics.

Golly, its like you are cartoonising my point to fit your arguing and assuming I hate 'the filthy casuals' when I am simply talking bout a game I like. Perhaps try not to win arguments and just discuss things? Again can't believe I have to quote this again but

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

No where did I say it was the sole reason or that I hate 'the filthy casuals' like you seem to be trying to say.

RaikuFA:

I don't think they did either but I remember them saying it in Nintendo Power when I was still subbed.

Lucky, I didn't really think it would be that big of an advertising detail due to advance wars

Xsjadoblayde:
Girls girls girls is a particular personal favourite. :)

That was one of the 1st songs that Youtube linked to me to from the initial video, and it is pretty awesome.

inu-kun:
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".

erttheking covered it in better detail. Going a full dex-based character is the hardest playstyle because you at least have to dodge. Going a tank warrior with heavy armor/shield makes melee much easier. Then, of course, going with ranged combat makes the game ridiculously easy. You can always still build characters for magic/ranged and melee. Pulling enemies one at a time with arrows, and then melee fighting is also "easy" mode. I fault From in poor design making playstyles horribly unbalanced. What if someone just likes mages and wants to play a mage (without knowing anything about the game)? They are going to get an easy ass experience when they might not want that. Same thing with an archer or a tank. Strafing alone breaks the AI. I can play Dragon's Dogma as any class and get a challenge, not so with Dark Souls. That's why Bloodborne is the best game in the series because it throws out shields and magic (until NG+) and focuses on the only playstyle works with the Souls' combat system.

kenu12345:

shrekfan246:

kenu12345:
As said, it wasn't purely casual mode but that mode did lower writing standards for death quotes, something that was always I feel pretty strong in previous games. On top of half the cast being technically unkillable even on classic for no apparent reason, alot of death quotes were rather lack luster being near identical. Overall writing quality was brought down due to that and a few other things that i feel are wrong with fates and awakening but that's a conversation for another day that wouldn't fit into this conversation.

kenu12345:
Correlation does not mean causation. . . . You can point the blame everywhere you want, but that only goes so far.

You can correlate a lack of permanent death with what you consider to be less meaningful dialogue, but you need to be able to substantiate that claim if you want to say that it is the reason "overall writing quality was brought down". And unless you have access to the scripts for the game and know all the things the writers did throughout the development of it, I'm pretty sure you can't actually substantiate that claim. If you want to argue in favor of your position, perhaps you should point to examples of writing in the game which stand far above the regular standard, to use as a counterpoint against this particular dialogue you seem to find objectionable. Evidence of highly varied writing quality within the game itself will provide much better backing support than "casuals ruined the writing!" Especially since if you believe that the writing quality of the entire game is lower than prior titles, that contradicts the idea that an easy mode difficulty is the reason behind it. There isn't really any connection between the quality of a game's writing and its difficulty.

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, video game writing doesn't get "dumbed down" in accordance with any perceived "dumbing down" of mechanics.

Golly, its like you are cartoonising my point to fit your arguing and assuming I hate 'the filthy casuals' when I am simply talking bout a game I like. Perhaps try not to win arguments and just discuss things? Again can't believe I have to quote this again but

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

No where did I say it was the sole reason or that I hate 'the filthy casuals' like you seem to be trying to say.

Wow.

Okay, first of all, I wasn't "cartoonising" anything. I was examining your argument from the perspective of reasonable academic debate, in which you are generally supposed to actually support your claims rather than just make them and then assume that everyone will take your word as correct. I'm sorry that my flippant, joking remark about "casuals ruining the writing!" apparently set you off, but I assure you that I wasn't stating that you believe "casuals" "ruined" Fire Emblem.

Moreover, you have completely avoided actually addressing my point, which is directly connected to your own words which I put in bold at the start of my post, and was restated at the end of my post. There is no connection between a game's difficulty and the quality of its writing, and you can't just fabricate that connection because you think a game's writing quality dropped after it decided to add in a non-permadeath mode.

No, you did not say that the easy difficulty is the sole reason for what you believe to be lesser writing quality, but you have not actually expanded upon anything else which you seem to think contributed to that, and in every one of your responses to anyone who has addressed your point, you have only doubled down on the idea that "[o]verall writing quality was brought down due to [the implementation of an easy difficulty]". Regardless of how much you qualify what you're saying, your actual arguments here give the impression that you think the addition of non-permadeath is a large part of the reason for what you view as worse writing.

Silvanus and I, and perhaps some other people, are trying to explain that the correlation of a lack of permadeath equals less meaningful "death" dialogue is not a causation of no permadeath equals worse writing. There are many reasons the writing quality could have slipped which are completely unrelated to the fact that they introduced a casual difficulty. In fact, the dialogue being essentially the same on the permadeath and non-permadeath modes points far more to simple laziness on the parts of the writers; otherwise, they would have rewritten the dialogue for the permadeath mode.

Fischgopf:

Rip Van Rabbit:
Elitist gatekeepers will do what they do best. Gatekeeping, screeching for validation and generally serve as a reminder that the "gaming community" can be bloody embarrassing.

God forbid that anyone step beyond themselves and consider that other people would like to enjoy an entertainment medium without having reached an arbitrary skill level.
Some players might dislike certain gameplay sections yet they still want to get invested/immersed in the story/setting.
There are people with physical ailments/disabilities that might prevent them from playing optimally or for long periods of time.

If a few twats, who attach their ego to their gaming accomplishments (snrk!), refuse to practice some self-restraint and merely choose their preferred difficulty settings/self-imposed challenges...maybe, just maybe, these twats can still enjoy the entertainment product without feeling the need to come down on others.

You have everything to gain by allowing your game to be more accessible. And when I say accessible, you don't have to compromise the intended experience for the intended demographic. Give the player a choice. This is not a black or white situation, there is a middle ground for all parties involved. If the game permits it, work on customizable difficulty. Best of both worlds.

But do you seriously believe thats what most Devs will do or is it pie in the sky reasoning to feel better about yourself for being inclusive?

Look, if it literally doesn't effect my experience of the game, I don't care. But ya know, we don't stop making Movies because blind people exist. So is life.

So, really this isn't anywhere near as clear cut as some people are acting.

Games should be inclusive...within reason. The rest of us shouldn't end up with a worse experience for the sake of the figmental tiny amount of one-armed gamers for instance.

Rip Van Rabbit:

Fischgopf:

Rip Van Rabbit:
...

You have everything to gain by allowing your game to be more accessible. And when I say accessible, you don't have to compromise the intended experience for the intended demographic. Give the player a choice. This is not a black or white situation, there is a middle ground for all parties involved. If the game permits it, work on customizable difficulty. Best of both worlds.

But do you seriously believe thats what most Devs will do or is it pie in the sky reasoning to feel better about yourself for being inclusive?

Look, if it literally doesn't effect my experience of the game, I don't care. But ya know, we don't stop making Movies because blind people exist. So is life.

So, really this isn't anywhere near as clear cut as some people are acting.

Games should be inclusive...within reason. The rest of us shouldn't end up with a worse experience for the sake of the figmental tiny amount of one-armed gamers for instance.

I believe I addressed your point in my last paragraph

First of all, I'm not making a point, I asked you a straight-forward question. Here it is in more detail.

Can you legitmately say you believe that if this were to become a trend to make Games accessible to all, with all the extra work that would entail, that the necessary effort would be made by a majority of Developers or do you think it is more likely that this would result in games being simplified in their entirety to avoid having to re-design entire sections of a Game to avoid difficulty that is not based on the underlying stats of a game such as enemy damage and hp?

and I didn't advocate for forcing a worse experience, so I don't appreciate words being put into my mouth.

And I didn't say you did, I simply gave my obviously leading question a bit of proper context to establish my perspective that this is not a "Yes we should totally do this and anyone with reservations is just a insecure asshole."-situation.

I also do not appreciate people putting words into my mouth with their projected interpretations of what I write, therefore I assume you understand that I would like a apology for the accusation.

The core experience does not need to be altered for the intended audience -- customisable difficulty was one option I mentioned as a potential solution for unintended audiences, a potential middle-ground to bridge the gap between gamers of different skill/interest levels.

So I am aware. It is also irrelevant. What COULD be has no bearing on what likely WILL be. THAT is what I and pretty much any other person with reservations is concerned about.

There is literally no rational reason for me to wish to be exclusive barring that I have something to lose from it. I am welcoming to newcomers, just more people to talk about games with as far as I'm concerned. I'd like Games to stay something I like in the process though, which ultimately boils down to considering the consequences of what we do or don't push and WHY we claim to do so.

Understand, while your post is my jumping off point, this isn't simply about you but the entire tone of the Thread. It's not a Discussion of the merits or different approaches, it's mostly a bunch of people going "NO, nothing could ever possibly go wrong with this because inclusion is inherently good no matter how you approach it or what presicely is being "discussed" and I am the goodiest of two shoes you irredeemible piece of shit you!". Slight exagerration.

I do agree with you that a game's difficulty/core experience shouldn't be bent to one extreme or another. (I already warned against black and white thinking.) Within reason, definitely. That kind of thinking is just going to lead to alienating one side while appeasing others.

I don't see why the core experience should be bent at all in most cases.

You ever here of Jennifer Hepler? She was some Bioware Writer on Dragon Age or something, not Games I care about, but that doesn't really matter. She suggested that Games should have a skip gameplay or skip combat button for people that simply wish to enjoy the story. This being the internet, a lot of dumb people went off on her for stupid reasons or no real reason at all, inable to articulate a actual issue with what she had suggested. They were wrong to do so.

What she suggested was still dumb though and really points out that she's not much of a Gamer...who is nonetheless sharing here opinion on where gaming should go...which I am pointing out because it kinda explains the vitriol. I say this by the way because her suggestion is ultimately to divorce Gameplay and Narrative altogether. She speaks of SKIPPING content for the sake of other content, meaning they couldn't occupy the same space in any meaningful way. I don't know about you, but personally I would consider that sort of developement a major step in the wrong direction.

If I were to advocate anything, it would be the New Super Mario Bros 2 approach in which failing often enough will just result in you receiving a Tanooki Suit that makes you invulnerable to anything but stage-related damage (bottom-less pits, moving screen etc.). If you can't make it with that...well, maybe you can't be helped without gimping most other people in the process or having way more work then Devs and publishers would ever do for what will likely be very little returns (cause come on, Games generally aren't that hard, barring handicaps most games should be entirely do-able).

And when it comes to people with physical limitations...let's be realistic here. More often then not it won't be feasible to do much of anything about it even if you were to compromise the content of the product for it. Gaming as a whole simply isn't a hobby that lends itself well to people with any such restrictions and this has only become more true over time. Many of these people, even amoung those sharing a common diagnosis, would still have specific individual needs. At the end of the day, including any but some of the less "severe" (example: features for color blind people should be mostly easy to keep in consideration and include in xour GameDesign) limitations can't feasibly be done as many would really require personalized Gamedesign (at times) or even custom made controllers.

My stance is that allowing more choice going into the experience can be a good thing. Whether devs should adopt this approach, well, that's not my call. Some experiences were meant to function in a certain manner. That's not a bad thing. Giving more choices to players of various skill levels? That shouldn't be a bad thing either.

My only issue is with the condescending attitude surrounding the defense against inclusiveness.

I feel the same way about the thoughtless defense of said inclusiveness.

There isn't an easy solution to this. It should definitely function on a case-by-case basis. But I feel that there can be nuanced solutions to the implementation of accessible modes.

That's my point though. There really is a super easy solution. That's the concerning part. They aren't going to put even MORE effort in to their products.

erttheking:

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've really never played a game where the true ending was locked behind the hardest difficulty mode? There was quite a few games like that back in the day.

erttheking:

4. I summon people to help me in boss fights all the time. Everyone does it.

I never did.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
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.

You're mad that you don't have the willpower to avoid such temptations? And, btw, MGO2 community coined the "git gud" catch phrase, an actually hard game.

If difficulty modes can ruin a game, I'm sure there's at least 1 example across thousands of video games where a difficulty mode has ruined a game. Please list such an example and you'll automatically win the argument.

How would I know unless there were two versions of the game, one made with an easy mode and one without? You know the question is unanswerable because of that factor, which is why you're asking. I'm still gonna say Souls, since you brought it up. Coop makes Souls lesser games. The AI and enemy movesets aren't adequate. I don't want the temptation in my times of frustration.

Drathnoxis:

erttheking:

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've really never played a game where the true ending was locked behind the hardest difficulty mode? There was quite a few games like that back in the day.

erttheking:

4. I summon people to help me in boss fights all the time. Everyone does it.

I never did.

Key words there being back in the day. It may have been a thing before, not so much now.

I already brought up the "technically not everyone" point.

I honestly don't get why people who don't want to spend the time "gitting gud" at the game don't just watch a let's play. I mean i get that in the video he's being dismissive, but like, if you don't want to deal with the difficulty, but still want to experience the game, isn't that the perfect solution? I'm not gonna judge, hell, you even save the game's price tag, and often get fun commentary, i'm a fan of both let's plays and playing the game, so i don't see why people are down on let's plays, the adventures of edwad emberpants is a riot!

As for easy mode, how would that even work in a multiplayer game? I guess you could only match people from the same difficulty, but that cuts your player base to probably too small of pieces to work, plus it's more resources on the devs part.

A part of me worries though that if we start putting easy modes in everything, eventually the hard modes will get phased out in time, we kind of only just got difficult games back, there was a pretty bad shortage before dark souls made difficulty cool again, at least in the mainstream. Fact is, easy mode on paper appeals to a wider demographic, and game publishers love their spreadsheets and numbers, so maybe at some point the hard modes start getting cut for resources, and i don't want that. I imagine it's harder to balance for hard games too, wouldn't striking a balance between tough and fair be a lot harder than just making all the enemies really weak? You've got a lot more leeway on the easy part, so there's another incentive for devs to chuck out high difficulty entirely, which again, i don't want to see.

I also do think not all games are for everyone. I'm complete crap at RTS and MOBAs for example, but i'm not going in to LOL demanding that the game be made easier so i can play it, it's not my strength, so for now i won't play them, at some point i may decide to invest the time and energy into developing those skills, which anyone can do by the way, getting better at a game through practice and dedication isn't "gatekeeping", learning and mastering a game is a big part of what a game is, and what makes games fun. Again, i think anyone can do that, and i think it demonstrates a certain level of passion for the game, which i think is commendable. "gitting gud" doesn't signify some natural ability or superiority, it signifies that you gave enough of a shit about the game to spend the time and energy developing your skills with it. Right now i don't quite give enough of a shit about LOL to git gud at it, and that's ok! That's not a condemnation of LOL or it's players; hell, maybe one day that will change and i'll join your ranks; But, at the moment, it's not for me, and you know what, that's OK!

I personally have a bit of scorn for the game journalists that can't get through cuphead, because that signals to me a lack of passion and interest, and it's rather telling to me that a demographic that's been criticized before of not actually having any love or passion for games actively demonstrates that lack of love or passion by not caring enough to be bothered to actually master and beat a game, even in spite of it actually being their job. Think about that, most of us spend money to play games because we love them, but these people get PAYED to play games (as well as write the articles of course, but playing the game is a big part of the job) and they STILL don't give enough of a shit to invest some time and energy into it! Is "gatekeeping" against people who don't actually give a shit about games, even when paid to do so, really a bad thing? I mean you'd think not having an interest in something would keep people out of the medium, but not in the game industry for some reason! I suppose they need to start peddling their race-baiting bullshit somewhere!

it's the difference between popcorn and a delicious home-cooked steak, sometimes you want popcorn, sure! Who doesn't like popcorn? But there's something special about a steak you marinated yourself, cooked to perfection, spent time on, and reaped the benefits of.

Put me in the camp that says devs shouldn't compromise what they wanted to make to appeal to more players who might not enjoy the intended difficulty. On the other hand, I have no issue with devs who want to make it a particular issue they want to focus on, not to discount considering the player is the one who chooses how difficult their experience is (I'd think this is more or less how most people think).

Maybe my perspective is just somewhat warped from mainly only playing fighting games with the odd long RPG for the past couple of years, but I do enjoy a game being dense and difficult mechanically. It tends to make learning or "gitting gud" that much better. Not for everyone, of course. In any case the matter of "accessibility" has been a legitimate concern in the genre for many years. Many approaches have been tried (i.e. Rising Thunder, auto-combo mechanics intended to allow some cool possibilities for those unable or unwilling to learn in games like P4A, Stylish mode in BlazBlue), but as far as I've seen no approach really works as you might think it would when you pit an experienced fighting game player against any new player. It's just the nature of the beast; a dedicated fighting game player knows far better how to approach learning and interpretation of common situations during the course of any match.

As it applies to other games though, just offer me as many choices on how I want to tailor my experience as possible. I'm absolutely fine with that. Same with attempting to address issues of accessibility you believe are important.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
If difficulty modes can ruin a game, I'm sure there's at least 1 example across thousands of video games where a difficulty mode has ruined a game. Please list such an example and you'll automatically win the argument.

How would I know unless there were two versions of the game, one made with an easy mode and one without? You know the question is unanswerable because of that factor, which is why you're asking. I'm still gonna say Souls, since you brought it up. Coop makes Souls lesser games. The AI and enemy movesets aren't adequate. I don't want the temptation in my times of frustration.

There's thousands of games with tons of them having difficulty modes. Surely, there must be at least one of them ruined by a difficulty mode if a difficulty mode can indeed ruin a game. How is that some kind of trap question? Unless you think we have somehow, against all odds, avoided a game being ruined and we have been so very lucky to this point.

You don't have to use co-op, that's on you. There's already tons of things in single player that make the game super easy, the AI was inadequate against freaking strafing. From Software are very poor in several areas of game design. Bloodborne is the best of the Souls games because it removed everything that just doesn't work.

Loaded question is loaded.

Ezekiel:
Loaded question is loaded.

Lol, it's not. Difficulty modes are OPTIONS, meaning you don't have to use said OPTION.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Loaded question is loaded.

Lol, it's not.

Yes, it is, when you think about the possibilities people here have discussed, like things having to be changed across multiple difficulties and time being taken away from other areas of designing and testing. Your request is unfulfillable because there is no way to know what a particular game might have been.

Phoenixmgs:
If difficulty modes can ruin a game, I'm sure there's at least 1 example across thousands of video games where a difficulty mode has ruined a game. Please list such an example and you'll automatically win the argument.

You realize I could point to literally any bad game with a difficulty setting and you wouldn't really have any way of disproving me? Any bad game could have been made good with additional time spend on it. Plenty of bad game were just ruined by either a general lack of polish or a few incomplete feature, things that could be fixed if they had more time/effort (i.e. weren't spending it on difficulty setting).

So I looked around and grab the first game that I saw in my room that I would consider bad, dragon age: inquisition. The game had plenty of planned feature that had to be removed (at some point the fort you build around the region were going to be a much more important part of the game, with some form of customization), this is absent from the final product, most likely because they had to use the development time elsewhere. Also the combat system was very limited (no companion behavior customization, little variety of ability), potentially, I'm going to claim that this is because the game had multiple difficulty setting, during testing they've found out that people on easy/normal setting weren't using these features because the game was so easy they could breeze trough it even without them, so they decided to cancel those features since they were just wasting resource on something most player wouldn't use. Once they did that they also stopped developing enemy with complex mechanic because now the player didn't have the tool anymore to properly deal with them. I posit that in an alternate reality where DA:I didn't have difficulty setting it's actually a really good game.

erttheking:

hanselthecaretaker:
Snip

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

Well thanks, that video reaffirmed my opinion on this topic while refuting much of your reply. I'm wondering if you even watched it, or acknowledged as much as the very first sentence of my previous post before you snipped?

Dreiko:

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.

Considering the common perception of the game, I doubt many people are choosing, vs simply not knowing. Even if it did have a difficulty select, "easy" and "hard" are by and large relative terms. I'll augment my stance as far as saying that I can tolerate and to some extent even appreciate difficulty select in a fighting game far more so than if one was present in SoulsBorne, because there it would run cross grain to the design, which encourages player experimentation, and outside-the-box thinking. It makes the game design feel more malleable and like nothing is really predefined. It is one experience, and the player can make of it what they want.

In a fighting game, a difficulty select makes practical sense, given the head-on nature of the genre where the higher the difficulty the more proficient the opponent is expected to be. There isn't a lot of wiggle room. You either know how to use your character efficiently and effectively or you will not do well.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
If difficulty modes can ruin a game, I'm sure there's at least 1 example across thousands of video games where a difficulty mode has ruined a game. Please list such an example and you'll automatically win the argument.

How would I know unless there were two versions of the game, one made with an easy mode and one without? You know the question is unanswerable because of that factor, which is why you're asking. I'm still gonna say Souls, since you brought it up. Coop makes Souls lesser games. The AI and enemy movesets aren't adequate. I don't want the temptation in my times of frustration.

There's thousands of games with tons of them having difficulty modes. Surely, there must be at least one of them ruined by a difficulty mode if a difficulty mode can indeed ruin a game. How is that some kind of trap question? Unless you think we have somehow, against all odds, avoided a game being ruined and we have been so very lucky to this point.

You don't have to use co-op, that's on you. There's already tons of things in single player that make the game super easy, the AI was inadequate against freaking strafing. From Software are very poor in several areas of game design. Bloodborne is the best of the Souls games because it removed everything that just doesn't work.

I still have to finish Bloodborne, but I understand what you mean by that. At the same time though, I'm far enough into it to realize that it took away a big chunk of what makes the main Souls games special, flaws or otherwise. Bloodborne is certainly tight and polished, but to use a musical analogy I'd liken it to a symphony that is nearly void of sharps and flats. Sure, it can still sound great, but ultimately is missing the key ingredients required for late night pondering.

Ezekiel:
Yes, it is, when you think about the possibilities people here have discussed, like things having to be changed across multiple difficulties and time being taken away from other areas of designing and testing. Your request is unfulfillable because there is no way to know what a particular game might have been.

Meiam:
You realize I could point to literally any bad game with a difficulty setting and you wouldn't really have any way of disproving me? Any bad game could have been made good with additional time spend on it. Plenty of bad game were just ruined by either a general lack of polish or a few incomplete feature, things that could be fixed if they had more time/effort (i.e. weren't spending it on difficulty setting).

So I looked around and grab the first game that I saw in my room that I would consider bad, dragon age: inquisition. The game had plenty of planned feature that had to be removed (at some point the fort you build around the region were going to be a much more important part of the game, with some form of customization), this is absent from the final product, most likely because they had to use the development time elsewhere. Also the combat system was very limited (no companion behavior customization, little variety of ability), potentially, I'm going to claim that this is because the game had multiple difficulty setting, during testing they've found out that people on easy/normal setting weren't using these features because the game was so easy they could breeze trough it even without them, so they decided to cancel those features since they were just wasting resource on something most player wouldn't use. Once they did that they also stopped developing enemy with complex mechanic because now the player didn't have the tool anymore to properly deal with them. I posit that in an alternate reality where DA:I didn't have difficulty setting it's actually a really good game.

You're both greatly over exaggerating the time and resources that go into difficulty levels. You're both acting like adding in just the standard easy and hard difficulty levels require entire separate playtests of both those added difficulties. You just change a few variables and then quickly test to make sure the math is working properly (usually just health and damage) and something weird isn't happening.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
I wish I could drop my integrity to Sterlings point

This reminds me of an old saying; If you put pride before a full belly, you will die starving.

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!"

eh...... Not exactly. Sometimes the difficulty is an integral part of the game and is an organic component of said game. Ala games like Dark Souls. To actually have an easy mode (that actually succeeds in what it's trying to achieve) in that particular game, there needs to be a major design overhaul which is highly costly and goes against the nihilist and brutal theme the game sets for its world. An easy mode would simply not work because, regardless of adjusting numbers (Because let's be honest, that's what easy mode is: a damage and HP slider), an easy mode would do jack shit to the Anorlando arches and you will still fall to your death via their gargantuan arrows.

And that's just a single example. At which point, an easy mode would be problematic because it means compromising on game design. To which I say, yes, a game is entitled to focus on a demographic and ignore those outside it. Same with how strategy games and FPSes appeal to completely different niches.

Keep in mind that I am NOT arguing that all games should be mega hard le git gud XXXXD, but rather games should be allowed to be diverse, even in terms of difficulty. Some games are better suited for difficulty sliders and others not so much, especially if said difficulty is a product of organic game design.

Kerg3927:
I play mostly mature games. What is the ESRB slogan? Rated M for Mature?

Maybe that's the solution to this. Just give any games that don't have easy modes or skip buttons a Mature rating. With the understanding that "Mature" means that the gamer is expected to be old enough to have learned the fundamental life lessons that:

1) You don't always get everything you want, no matter how much you whine, and you are not entitled to anything; and

2) People who put forth more effort to become successful at something typically receive better rewards than people who don't want to put forth any effort, and if you don't like that, tough shit, get over it.

So if you are not mature, you can just look at the rating and instantly know that the game is not for you and you should probably play something else with a lower rating...

image

You're calling people entitled while simultaneously making demands that certain games be kept out of the hands of others so that only you can enjoy them. Do you really not see the irony in that?

 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