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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 15 NEXT
 

hanselthecaretaker:
Snip

Except, no, the night and day nature of it makes the principles utter garbage. I give it my all and never give up in school, because my livelihood is riding on it. If I encounter a video game that's proving too frustrating to deal with, I take a break and ask myself if the game is really worth getting that worked up with. Many an Overwatch session has ended with me stopping because I was getting too frustrated. If it was school, I'd come back twice as hard. But school is important. Overwatch isn't.

No one is arguing that everything needs to pander to everyone, stop it with that strawman. People are just getting sick of everyone turning their nose up at the mere thought of an easy mode, and that if an easy mode would be put it, it wouldn't affect you at all, so you can stop acting like it has any kind of impact on fucking anyone.

"Bend to their expectations," this is all relying on the narrative that people are forcing easy modes into games where the devs don't want them. A work of pure fiction as far as I'm concerned. I've seen no one here arguing for that. And considering the number of people who flip out when these modes are suggested, it almost seems like the people who hate the idea of easy modes are the ones who hate the decisions of the devs. You just need to look at how people reacted to smart steering in Mario Kart or the invincible mode in Star Fox Zero to see that. I mean, the Dark Souls easy mode idea that everyone hates so fucking much? It came up because of what the director himself freaking said. He said he prefers his games to be satisfying rather than difficult, and that he finds it sad that the difficulty of his games put some people off, and that he wants to be able to tweak his game so that everyone can be able to play it. Now he himself didn't float the idea of an easy mode, but he certainly isn't on board with the dismissive attitude you and so many other people have and seems to be totally on board with making the game more accessible in more subtle ways.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Its exactly what you're doing in Guild Wars after all, starting off doing the stuff you are capable of doing before working your way up to the guilds. Whats wrong, can't play Guild Wars on hard mode by jumping straight into the guilds?

Have you ever played an MMO like WoW or Guild Wars 2? You have to level up. It's a grind. The type of guild I would be looking to join are focused on endgame. Level 80-only stuff. I can't do level 80 stuff until I've put in the time to grind to level 80. The game doesn't even make the content available to me. Leveling to 80 is not easy mode. It's the only mode. Everyone has to go through it before they can get to endgame.

Pallindromemordnillap:
And here we have the crux of the problem. Ego. This whole debate boils down to a group of people being elitist as hell;

Nothing wrong with building a little self-esteem and pride through hard work and accomplishment. I consider that to be very healthy.

In my opinion, this comes down to completely different philosophies on life. What you call an elitist attitude and consider bad, I call a winner's attitude and consider good.

It boils down to two different approaches one can take to overcoming obstacles. One approach is to suck it up, put forth effort and overcome. Another approach is to not even try because it's too hard, and instead put all your effort into whining until someone gives you what you want for free.

We are all born taking the latter approach, as we lie in our crib as babies crying for a bottle. Some people outgrow that and learn to get what they want on their own. Others apparently never outgrow it, and continue to whine to get what they want.

Pallindromemordnillap:
As I pointed out above, just because an easy mode would be zero effort for you does not mean its zero effort for someone else. A little attempt at empathy would go a long way here. It not that they don't give a shit, its not that they're not trying, its that the current challenge is too hard and they need to take it down a notch

Again, here's where you and I disagree on a fundamental level. In fact, if you think about it, YOU'RE the one showing an elitist attitude here, by saying these people are inherently inferior to people like me and not capable of succeeding without it being handed to them. I'm the one saying that what I can do is nothing special and can be accomplished by anyone if they simply put forth some effort.

Pallindromemordnillap:

So you're telling me you'd be fine with a game locking content away behind paywalls, only letting you continue if you put in enough money rather than because you'd picked up enough skill? After all, thats the way it was designed

As much as I hate it, yes that is fine. In fact it's been in gaming for years. Capcom has been keeping on disc characters locked behind paid "dlc" for years. That war is over and we all lost it. But that situation is not a direct comparison to what we are talking about here.

Pallindromemordnillap:

And here we have the crux of the problem. Ego. This whole debate boils down to a group of people being elitist as hell; they think playing hard mode makes them equivalent to old world pioneers or something and not simply good at a particular game. So they argue against a perceived diminishing of that one skill at one game, never realising that the arguing makes them seem smaller than an easy mode they aren't going to use ever would.

Why does a willingness to improve and get better at something elitist? Why is that your reaction to my point? There is nothing elitist in what I said. Just because a game doesn't have to appeal to the lowest possible denominator, doesn't make the game or the people who love it elitist. And frankly your free use of the elitist label upon people just shows that you have no idea what it even means. An elitist would belittle and insult someone who couldn't play a "hard" game like they could. Nobody here is doing that. The statement is simply that a hard game is allowed to be hard and unplayable/unbeatable by some people. It doesn't diminish, nor insult anybody that can't play the game.

Pallindromemordnillap:

But if they're finding the game too difficult on hard, then they'll still find it difficult on easy. It won't be as difficult for -you-, but for them its still the challenge that you say is the whole point. Try to actually think about POVs other than your own dude

Not necessarily. Sure it is possible that Dark Souls or whatever might still be a challenge on "easy", it also might not. Usually a persons need to play on an easy mode is not because they CAN'T play a game on a harder mode, but because they don't WANT to. I myself am like that. I have beaten Bloodborne, but I cannot beat Dark Souls 2. I could probably bang it out if I really sit down to do it, like I finally did with DS3, but I can't be asked. On top of that I often play games on the easiest mode I can get away with, The Witcher 3 for example, I play on "story mode" which is stupid easy.

Quite literally I am the guy who always plays on easy, even before trying on normal or hard if I can. Yet I am rallying against you and those like you on these forums in saying that it is okay for games to only be hard if that's what they want to be. It is okay to not be able to play every game. I am too stupid to play tactics and strategy games like Starcraft and X-Com, but you don't see me demanding that there be a hack n' slash mode for those games so that I can play them. If anything is entitlement, it is this insistent demand that every game be accessible to everyone. It just doesn't work that way.

Pallindromemordnillap:

...or they actually like the design of Bloodbourne and the way the game plays, they just find it too difficult to actually grind through for whatever reason. It leaping to conclusions like this that just make you look like an egotistical asshole, btw, calling everyone who doesn't play exactly the way you do whiny peasant children who need to get off your lawn

Thanks for calling me an asshole. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean to have to be insulting in order to try and push me down. Your point here is completely nonsense, because if a person liked the way Bloodborne played, they would be playing it regardless of difficulty. Usually what happens when a person likes a thing, is that they get pretty good at that thing (guitar playing, video editing, game playing, magic the gathering, etc, etc etc,) so chances are that if someone really liked the play style of bloodborne, they'd be playing the game enough to get good at it. That's how hobbies work.

Pallindromemordnillap:

And as has been mentioned many times in this thread, they still can enjoy what they like. Adding an easy mode does not mean taking away a hard mode. The idea that adding an easy mode will somehow fuck up hard mode in any way is patently ridiculous

That is perfectly fine. I've said many times (which people fucking ignore for some reason) that if a game is designed with difficulty modes, then great. My problem is insisting that a game without difficulty levels, somehow have those levels pushed into the game when it is clearly not intended to have a varying degree of challenge. It is really easy for people to say, "Oh just add easy-mode" when they have no clue how much programming and designing that actually takes. That's even if the developers take the easy way out of just lowering enemy health and damage output. Nevermind changing AI behavior, enemy placements, etc. I mean if the enemies did less damage, would it actually make Dark Souls less hard? I am not so sure about that, because a lot of that game is designed around memorizing patterns and if you get caught in a combo (DS3 and BB especially) you will die anyway. I would even go so far as to say those games are more rhythm games than anything else and if you have no rhythm there isn't a lot an easy mode could even offer you.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
The first flaw in your analogy is that MMA does in fact have gradings based on current level of skill, past experiences, plain ol' weight and a few others. This is to ensure you don't have a rookie in his first contest against a UFC champion. Thats right, MMA has an easy mode ;)

But all of those MMA classes have something in common. They all are made up of fighters who are expected to put forth effort to become at least competent at the sport. They don't just let any out of shape couch potato jump in and fight. The people complaining about Cuphead's easy mode not being easy enough and those wanting a skip button are refusing to put forth the minimum effort the game requires.

People talk about how it's all about inclusion. Pretty much every game is already inclusionary. With the exception being people with physical or mental disabilities, there are very, very few games in existence that cannot be completed by anyone who wants to put in the effort, IMO. The only type of people that some games exclude are those who don't give a shit enough about the game to put forth any effort. And if they don't give a shit about the game, why should the developers give a shit about them?

As I pointed out above, just because an easy mode would be zero effort for you does not mean its zero effort for someone else. A little attempt at empathy would go a long way here. It not that they don't give a shit, its not that they're not trying, its that the current challenge is too hard and they need to take it down a notch[/quote]

So why couldn't this person just play something else? Just because you find the game too hard, doesn't mean other people do. Try to have empathy for others who enjoy the game as it is.

Pallindromemordnillap:

How are they using the skip button? Whats being skipped? What else is in the game that they're not skipping? Can't just throw out vague and nebulous accusations dude, because that once again takes us back to you just being an asshole telling people that not playing the way you play isn't playing "right" and I'm going to have to use that Frink video myself

This is the question that people failed to answer in the thread about skip buttons. You can't justify a skip button because the hypothetically rules don't make any sense. There is literally no justified way to put in a skip function into a game that would make universal sense. Thus why we don't have skip buttons.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Personally I'm of the opinion that telling people that they just need to work harder if they're having trouble is like telling something with depression that they just need to cheer up. It just shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation the other person is in. They could use a helping hand not someone calling them lazy.
This argument is also self-defeating. If all they need to git gud is to keep working at it, then surely an easy mode is a good thing. They can try at that, practise their skills, then work up to hard mode when they're more used to what the game has to throw at them. Its exactly what you're doing in Guild Wars after all, starting off doing the stuff you are capable of doing before working your way up to the guilds. Whats wrong, can't play Guild Wars on hard mode by jumping straight into the guilds?

This is not true for a couple of reasons.

1. Normal modes in MMO's versus hard modes are not just about being skillful. Often times these hard modes require a level of gear that you must run the normal mode for. Very few games of this nature have players even capable of jumping right into the hard mode without having done the normal mode to power-up their characters first. It's raw number output over actual difficulty most of the time.

2. You can't compare video games (which aren't serious of life threatening things) to something like depression (which is life threatening and serious) because the stakes aren't comparable. It's like comparing giving someone incorrect change at a fast food place, to give someone the incorrect medication. They aren't even remotely close to being equal mistakes and thus cannot be compared the same way.

erttheking:

Uh, Bloodborne is one of my favorite games of this generation and it certainly wasn't the whole point of the game to me. The haunting atmosphere and Lovecraftian story did just as much for me as the gameplay, as well as the tragedy that haunts most of the characters.

Good for you sir. Read my statement in this post above about "enjoying" bloodborne. Since you yourself mention in the quote that you like the gameplay as much as the world of the game.

Let me ask you this? How hard was the game for you? Would you have kept playing if the game was set in any other universe? So not, why? If so, why?

CritialGaming:
Snip

Yeah, I like the gameplay because it's well put together. Varied weapons with unique move sets and varied approaches to combat. Ironically, I don't consider difficulty to be the thing that ties it all together. I certainly enjoy it, but if it was made a little easier I'd hardly consider the experience easier.

Middling. Steamrolled some of the bosses, struggled with others. (Fucking Orphan of Kos). Would I keep playing? There's a good chance that I wouldn't, because honestly the tone is something that makes me feel more paranoid and cautious than the difficulty ever could. I didn't finish Dark Souls 2 because it just didn't feel as interesting as Dark Souls 1. Also it felt fucking sluggish compared to the other Souls games.

erttheking:

CritialGaming:
Snip

Yeah, I like the gameplay because it's well put together. Varied weapons with unique move sets and varied approaches to combat. Ironically, I don't consider difficulty to be the thing that ties it all together. I certainly enjoy it, but if it was made a little easier I'd hardly consider the experience easier.

Middling. Steamrolled some of the bosses, struggled with others. (Fucking Orphan of Kos). Would I keep playing? There's a good chance that I wouldn't, because honestly the tone is something that makes me feel more paranoid and cautious than the difficulty ever could. I didn't finish Dark Souls 2 because it just didn't feel as interesting as Dark Souls 1. Also it felt fucking sluggish compared to the other Souls games.

Sounds like the mark of a good game to me. Something that sinks into you and sticks with you. Also I believe Orphan is optional so you can skip it.

CritialGaming:

erttheking:

CritialGaming:
Snip

Yeah, I like the gameplay because it's well put together. Varied weapons with unique move sets and varied approaches to combat. Ironically, I don't consider difficulty to be the thing that ties it all together. I certainly enjoy it, but if it was made a little easier I'd hardly consider the experience easier.

Middling. Steamrolled some of the bosses, struggled with others. (Fucking Orphan of Kos). Would I keep playing? There's a good chance that I wouldn't, because honestly the tone is something that makes me feel more paranoid and cautious than the difficulty ever could. I didn't finish Dark Souls 2 because it just didn't feel as interesting as Dark Souls 1. Also it felt fucking sluggish compared to the other Souls games.

Sounds like the mark of a good game to me. Something that sinks into you and sticks with you. Also I believe Orphan is optional so you can skip it.

Yup, and honestly I really don't think a mode where things are slightly easier would hurt it in the slightest. I'm serious, the game is just that well put together.

For the game as a whole? Yes. For the Old Hunters DLC? Not so much, in there it's the final boss.

CritialGaming:

erttheking:

CritialGaming:
Snip

Yeah, I like the gameplay because it's well put together. Varied weapons with unique move sets and varied approaches to combat. Ironically, I don't consider difficulty to be the thing that ties it all together. I certainly enjoy it, but if it was made a little easier I'd hardly consider the experience easier.

Middling. Steamrolled some of the bosses, struggled with others. (Fucking Orphan of Kos). Would I keep playing? There's a good chance that I wouldn't, because honestly the tone is something that makes me feel more paranoid and cautious than the difficulty ever could. I didn't finish Dark Souls 2 because it just didn't feel as interesting as Dark Souls 1. Also it felt fucking sluggish compared to the other Souls games.

Sounds like the mark of a good game to me. Something that sinks into you and sticks with you. Also I believe Orphan is optional so you can skip it.

The Orphan only matters if you want to finish the DLC, though by that point you're probably at the endgame regardless so all you have left is the final boss(es).

I fought the Orphan a couple times, kept getting flattened and finally decided I was more then happy to leave him alone on that beach and go finish the game. Then ironically got the magical squid ending, so essentially ended up becoming a baby Kos(some would say kosm).

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Its exactly what you're doing in Guild Wars after all, starting off doing the stuff you are capable of doing before working your way up to the guilds. Whats wrong, can't play Guild Wars on hard mode by jumping straight into the guilds?

Have you ever played an MMO like WoW or Guild Wars 2? You have to level up. It's a grind. The type of guild I would be looking to join are focused on endgame. Level 80-only stuff. I can't do level 80 stuff until I've put in the time to grind to level 80. The game doesn't even make the content available to me. Leveling to 80 is not easy mode. It's the only mode. Everyone has to go through it before they can get to endgame.

Unless Guild Wars 2 has some truly bizarre levelling system, its not going to be divided into an area for Beginners and one other for Level 80s. There will be various areas in which you can do the grinding. Some of these will be harder than others. So, did you go for the level appropriate areas or jump straight at the hardest ones you could find.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
And here we have the crux of the problem. Ego. This whole debate boils down to a group of people being elitist as hell;

Nothing wrong with building a little self-esteem and pride through hard work and accomplishment. I consider that to be very healthy.

In my opinion, this comes down to completely different philosophies on life. What you call an elitist attitude and consider bad, I call a winner's attitude and consider good.

It boils down to two different approaches one can take to overcoming obstacles. One approach is to suck it up, put forth effort and overcome. Another approach is to not even try because it's too hard, and instead put all your effort into whining until someone gives you what you want for free.

We are all born taking the latter approach, as we lie in our crib as babies crying for a bottle. Some people outgrow that and learn to get what they want on their own. Others apparently never outgrow it, and continue to whine to get what they want.

If you were really so proud of what you had done, you wouldn't care what other people did. You'd simply be happy with what you did. Instead you're ranting about other people playing it on easy, which means you're not trying to get your ego fix by basking in your accomplishments, you're trying to get it by belittling those of other people. You're trying to use easy mode as an easy way of telling yourself you're better. For all that you're trying to justify it, this comes down to nothing more than you being the whiny baby demanding that everyone has to play his way because if they aren't then you can't feel so big anymore. And thats not healthy at all dude.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
As I pointed out above, just because an easy mode would be zero effort for you does not mean its zero effort for someone else. A little attempt at empathy would go a long way here. It not that they don't give a shit, its not that they're not trying, its that the current challenge is too hard and they need to take it down a notch

Again, here's where you and I disagree on a fundamental level. In fact, if you think about it, YOU'RE the one showing an elitist attitude here, by saying these people are inherently inferior to people like me and not capable of succeeding without it being handed to them. I'm the one saying that what I can do is nothing special and can be accomplished by anyone if they simply put forth some effort.

Firstly, that would patronising, not elitism. Simply throwing words at me and hoping I'll be insulted by them isn't that easy ;)
Secondly, you're the one basing your assumption an everyone being you. You're the one assuming everyone has your exact level of prior experience, exact level of patience, exact level of free time. You're the sheltered trust fund kid wondering why everyone doesn't just go to Yale.
Thirdly, no, you're the one who's levelled actual not-even-implied insults at people who use easy mode, so pretty sure you're the one calling people inferior. Nice try.

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

So you're telling me you'd be fine with a game locking content away behind paywalls, only letting you continue if you put in enough money rather than because you'd picked up enough skill? After all, thats the way it was designed

As much as I hate it, yes that is fine. In fact it's been in gaming for years. Capcom has been keeping on disc characters locked behind paid "dlc" for years. That war is over and we all lost it. But that situation is not a direct comparison to what we are talking about here.

One is an arbitrary means of slowing you down or blocking you completely until you sink enough of what it wants from you into it. The other is...also an arbitrary means of slowing you down or blocking you completely etc, etc. Difference is that a paywall wants money, a difficulty level wants your time. Some people have one to spare but not the other, some people have neither. If you had the chance to remove the paywalls you hate you would take it, so why is it different for people wanting an easy mode?

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

And here we have the crux of the problem. Ego. This whole debate boils down to a group of people being elitist as hell; they think playing hard mode makes them equivalent to old world pioneers or something and not simply good at a particular game. So they argue against a perceived diminishing of that one skill at one game, never realising that the arguing makes them seem smaller than an easy mode they aren't going to use ever would.

Why does a willingness to improve and get better at something elitist? Why is that your reaction to my point? There is nothing elitist in what I said. Just because a game doesn't have to appeal to the lowest possible denominator, doesn't make the game or the people who love it elitist. And frankly your free use of the elitist label upon people just shows that you have no idea what it even means. An elitist would belittle and insult someone who couldn't play a "hard" game like they could. Nobody here is doing that. The statement is simply that a hard game is allowed to be hard and unplayable/unbeatable by some people. It doesn't diminish, nor insult anybody that can't play the game.

Except that is what people are doing. I could go through the pages of this topic and get some examples if you want, or you could just read my above reply to Kerg where he calls people whiny babies for not wanting to play on a hard mode. Hence why I feel pretty justified calling him an elitist, no misuse of the term at all, because belittling others is exactly what he's doing

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

But if they're finding the game too difficult on hard, then they'll still find it difficult on easy. It won't be as difficult for -you-, but for them its still the challenge that you say is the whole point. Try to actually think about POVs other than your own dude

Not necessarily. Sure it is possible that Dark Souls or whatever might still be a challenge on "easy", it also might not. Usually a persons need to play on an easy mode is not because they CAN'T play a game on a harder mode, but because they don't WANT to. I myself am like that. I have beaten Bloodborne, but I cannot beat Dark Souls 2. I could probably bang it out if I really sit down to do it, like I finally did with DS3, but I can't be asked. On top of that I often play games on the easiest mode I can get away with, The Witcher 3 for example, I play on "story mode" which is stupid easy.

Quite literally I am the guy who always plays on easy, even before trying on normal or hard if I can. Yet I am rallying against you and those like you on these forums in saying that it is okay for games to only be hard if that's what they want to be. It is okay to not be able to play every game. I am too stupid to play tactics and strategy games like Starcraft and X-Com, but you don't see me demanding that there be a hack n' slash mode for those games so that I can play them. If anything is entitlement, it is this insistent demand that every game be accessible to everyone. It just doesn't work that way.

Turning a RTS into a hack and slash wouldn't be "adding an easy mode" it would be "changing the game". These are two very different things. Like, I'm suggesting that if you're finding Monopoly too hard you add that unofficial house rule about money going into Free Parking while someone like Kerg is suggesting they just fuck off and play Snap. Though that may not be the best analogy because if anything will bring us together its a uniting hate towards Monopoly

Pallindromemordnillap:

...or they actually like the design of Bloodbourne and the way the game plays, they just find it too difficult to actually grind through for whatever reason. It leaping to conclusions like this that just make you look like an egotistical asshole, btw, calling everyone who doesn't play exactly the way you do whiny peasant children who need to get off your lawn

Thanks for calling me an asshole. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean to have to be insulting in order to try and push me down. Your point here is completely nonsense, because if a person liked the way Bloodborne played, they would be playing it regardless of difficulty. Usually what happens when a person likes a thing, is that they get pretty good at that thing (guitar playing, video editing, game playing, magic the gathering, etc, etc etc,) so chances are that if someone really liked the play style of bloodborne, they'd be playing the game enough to get good at it. That's how hobbies work. [/quote]
You're calling people who simply want to play a game "entitled" and treating them with an air of disgust for daring to try. Were you expecting me to treat you like a glorious hero?
My logic isn't nonsense, you're just looking at the end of it. You say yourself, they "get good at it". They, as you say you do, have to start off on easy mode. Can't go straight from crawling to running, you need walking to ease you in.

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

And as has been mentioned many times in this thread, they still can enjoy what they like. Adding an easy mode does not mean taking away a hard mode. The idea that adding an easy mode will somehow fuck up hard mode in any way is patently ridiculous

That is perfectly fine. I've said many times (which people fucking ignore for some reason) that if a game is designed with difficulty modes, then great. My problem is insisting that a game without difficulty levels, somehow have those levels pushed into the game when it is clearly not intended to have a varying degree of challenge. It is really easy for people to say, "Oh just add easy-mode" when they have no clue how much programming and designing that actually takes. That's even if the developers take the easy way out of just lowering enemy health and damage output. Nevermind changing AI behavior, enemy placements, etc. I mean if the enemies did less damage, would it actually make Dark Souls less hard? I am not so sure about that, because a lot of that game is designed around memorizing patterns and if you get caught in a combo (DS3 and BB especially) you will die anyway. I would even go so far as to say those games are more rhythm games than anything else and if you have no rhythm there isn't a lot an easy mode could even offer you.

If it wasn't intended to have varying degrees of challenge then it would hurl the final boss at you straight away, stomp you dead in five seconds, then ask if you wanted to restart.
Off the top of my head, if people were having trouble with the rhythm of fights then perhaps a more obvious signposting of the attacks would help them. Or just slower attacks. And while you give me the schtick about how much time and programming that takes, I'm going to bring back my previous point of how much time, effort and programming all those high end graphics take. More than an easy mode would. Don't mind those eating up the budget, do you?

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:
As I pointed out above, just because an easy mode would be zero effort for you does not mean its zero effort for someone else. A little attempt at empathy would go a long way here. It not that they don't give a shit, its not that they're not trying, its that the current challenge is too hard and they need to take it down a notch

So why couldn't this person just play something else? Just because you find the game too hard, doesn't mean other people do. Try to have empathy for others who enjoy the game as it is.

I do have empathy for them. But (say it with me now) what would be stopping them just continuing to play it on the hard mode? If what you want is a serious challenge, then you still have the serious challenge. Nothing has been taken away or changed.

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

How are they using the skip button? Whats being skipped? What else is in the game that they're not skipping? Can't just throw out vague and nebulous accusations dude, because that once again takes us back to you just being an asshole telling people that not playing the way you play isn't playing "right" and I'm going to have to use that Frink video myself

This is the question that people failed to answer in the thread about skip buttons. You can't justify a skip button because the hypothetically rules don't make any sense. There is literally no justified way to put in a skip function into a game that would make universal sense. Thus why we don't have skip buttons.

At no point did you actually ask a question. You made a comment about skip buttons and I have asked for clarification. What is your question, what would you like answered? Just setting some foundation work, but I'm for skip buttons. I would quite liked to have jumped pass all those Riddler races in Arkham Knight and gone right back to just hunting down riddles

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Personally I'm of the opinion that telling people that they just need to work harder if they're having trouble is like telling something with depression that they just need to cheer up. It just shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation the other person is in. They could use a helping hand not someone calling them lazy.
This argument is also self-defeating. If all they need to git gud is to keep working at it, then surely an easy mode is a good thing. They can try at that, practise their skills, then work up to hard mode when they're more used to what the game has to throw at them. Its exactly what you're doing in Guild Wars after all, starting off doing the stuff you are capable of doing before working your way up to the guilds. Whats wrong, can't play Guild Wars on hard mode by jumping straight into the guilds?

This is not true for a couple of reasons.

1. Normal modes in MMO's versus hard modes are not just about being skillful. Often times these hard modes require a level of gear that you must run the normal mode for. Very few games of this nature have players even capable of jumping right into the hard mode without having done the normal mode to power-up their characters first. It's raw number output over actual difficulty most of the time.

2. You can't compare video games (which aren't serious of life threatening things) to something like depression (which is life threatening and serious) because the stakes aren't comparable. It's like comparing giving someone incorrect change at a fast food place, to give someone the incorrect medication. They aren't even remotely close to being equal mistakes and thus cannot be compared the same way.

1. See, thats not just an easy mode, thats an enforced easy mode. They want to be sure you have all the stuff you need to actually face the higher levels rather than just assuming you'll learn eventually if you die enough times
2. A valid point if I were comparing video games to depression. I am not. I'm comparing the reactions. Saying "git gud" to someone legitimately struggling with a game is just as unhelpful and unthinking as saying "cheer up" to someone who is clinically depressed. Neither actually offers a solution and both show the speaker isn't really thinking outside their own scenario

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

Well then, at this point you are just flipping everything around on people to fit your view point. Bending arguments and points to fit your opinion, and as a result I have nothing more to say, as there isn't much point to talking to a wall.

Provide some counter points, instead of slapping back labels and exaggerations.

Kyrian007:
That is something that I'm wondering though, does anyone do any playtesting anymore?

I can see why you would wonder about that. But you are probably thinking of games like Skyrim or Witcher 3 that lean heavily on story or messing about and not so much on challenge. Challenge based games need a lot of playtesting to be good, and it seems to me that challenge based games are the focus of discussion.

I think in all fairness they do actually playtest games like Skyrim, but to make them really balanced you'd have to cut or water down lots of nice features. So they lean on the side of easy and let you decide if you want to fight fairly or go stealth archery.

Phoenixmgs:
Just look at Witcher 3 and how OPed just the Quen and Axii signs are, you could beat enemies of far above your level by exploiting powers you start the game with, it will take quite a bit longer to beat high-level enemies just due to your DPS cap but you can beat them rather easily without even taking any damage.

And that is exactly why you shouldn't just blindly apply damage scaling without playtesting the game. In this case, players can either use those signs effectively or they can't, and changing damage values won't change whether they can win fights.

erttheking:

hanselthecaretaker:
Snip

Except, no, the night and day nature of it makes the principles utter garbage. I give it my all and never give up in school, because my livelihood is riding on it. If I encounter a video game that's proving too frustrating to deal with, I take a break and ask myself if the game is really worth getting that worked up with. Many an Overwatch session has ended with me stopping because I was getting too frustrated. If it was school, I'd come back twice as hard. But school is important. Overwatch isn't.

IMO principles aren't subject to a law of diminishing return or level of importance. Whether it's important enough to follow through on is another story though. The consequences of giving up on a job that's too hard could be dire enough to make perseverance a necessity, whereas saying the hell with a game that doesn't have an easy mode isn't something to lose sleep over. But I'm not going to complain any more about a job vs a game being the way they are.

I thought Overwatch was online only, so not sure how difficulty really applies in that example, but I digress.

erttheking:

No one is arguing that everything needs to pander to everyone, stop it with that strawman. People are just getting sick of everyone turning their nose up at the mere thought of an easy mode, and that if an easy mode would be put it, it wouldn't affect you at all, so you can stop acting like it has any kind of impact on fucking anyone.

Could say the same for the rest of that statement.

erttheking:

"Bend to their expectations," this is all relying on the narrative that people are forcing easy modes into games where the devs don't want them. A work of pure fiction as far as I'm concerned. I've seen no one here arguing for that. And considering the number of people who flip out when these modes are suggested, it almost seems like the people who hate the idea of easy modes are the ones who hate the decisions of the devs. You just need to look at how people reacted to smart steering in Mario Kart or the invincible mode in Star Fox Zero to see that. I mean, the Dark Souls easy mode idea that everyone hates so fucking much? It came up because of what the director himself freaking said. He said he prefers his games to be satisfying rather than difficult, and that he finds it sad that the difficulty of his games put some people off, and that he wants to be able to tweak his game so that everyone can be able to play it. Now he himself didn't float the idea of an easy mode, but he certainly isn't on board with the dismissive attitude you and so many other people have and seems to be totally on board with making the game more accessible in more subtle ways.

I'm not familiar with recent Nintendo games but as for Souls, yes I realize they toned the difficulty down from what it was originally play-tested as. However, if Miyazaki really thought it was too difficult it would've been made easier instead of arguably tougher through DS3 and its DLC. Like it's been mentioned on probably every page in this thread alone, the game already has several built in "easy modes" anyways. That's what makes it unique and significant. There is literally no point in some predetermined difficulty select. It cheapens and divides the intended experience.

I understand that design model fits some genres better, like fighting games or sports games, but feels increasingly unnecessary in other modern games like SoulsBorne and GTA. I think difficulty should be based more on varying in-game challenges and threaded through more naturally occurring elements within the game's systems, environments, combat, etc. than reserved for a bunch of scripted sliders in a menu.

I saw a commercial for League of Legends about embracing being new. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjJjAq2W_E

I feel like it is a good message for what we are talking about here.

Here is a video I found were pros talk about their noob experiences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvSeRqntf7U

The motto overall is that being bad at something that is hard is only the first step towards being good at something. It is really easy to take a hard game, fail, and get mad at the game. Easy to make demands that the game shouldn't be that way, it shouldn't be so hard.

It is okay to find a game difficult. Keep trying, because eventually you will get it.

Now I get the what is about to be thrown at me, "Some people just can't do it no matter how they try." "Some people don't have the time/patience/etc etc etc." Fine. Then don't play that game. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with stepping away from a game and just saying it isn't a game for you and moving on?

Are the players that can handle the difficulty, handle what the game is asking of them entitled? Or are you entitled for demanded that the game be brought down to a comfortable level for you?

I saw someone make the point that games used to be hard to continue to milk people for quarters in the arcades, and now that you buy a game outright you are entitled to experience the full game. Which to me is only half true. You ARE entitled to the full challenge the game presents you, you are entitled to as many tries as you need to overcome that challenge, but you are NOT entitled to the game rolling over for you to mount and have your way with.

If a game wants to offer you an easy-mode, then I say take it. I take the easy route too whenever I can. I am not dogging, nor am I insulting anyone who plays on any casual game mode. But I am calling people out for demanding that EVERY game cater to their needs. That is absolutely insane, and if you truly believe that it doesn't hurt anything for you to have your way...you are wrong.

It hurts you. You hurt yourself by neglecting yourself the joy of overcoming something truly difficult for you. What classifies as different varies from person to person of course, but there is a fairly standardized line for most functional people. For some people a puzzle may fuck them up, for others it's a combat mechanic, it's all different, but it follows the same curve.

I believe that everyone of this forum has played a game, fought a boss, or dealt with a platforming level that absolutely ruined them for hours. But eventually you beat it, and you got that RUSH! Now imagine that same struggle today, the boss is wrecking you, for whatever reason you can't make that fucking jump, what moon logic is this puzzle, fuck it, click to easy mode and win like it wasn't even a thing. Think you get that same rush? I doubt it. Oh you might feel relieved that the part is over, but that joyous high wont be there.

I can't seem to say it enough, because people still don't get it. Every game, does NOT have to be for everybody.

Move on.

Pallindromemordnillap:
If you were really so proud of what you had done, you wouldn't care what other people did. You'd simply be happy with what you did. Instead you're ranting about other people playing it on easy, which means you're not trying to get your ego fix by basking in your accomplishments, you're trying to get it by belittling those of other people. You're trying to use easy mode as an easy way of telling yourself you're better. For all that you're trying to justify it, this comes down to nothing more than you being the whiny baby demanding that everyone has to play his way because if they aren't then you can't feel so big anymore. And thats not healthy at all dude.

You're wrong. I genuinely believe that overcoming challenges and obtaining the appropriate rewards is healthy for people, and that giving up easily and whining until they get the reward handed to them is very unhealthy. And whenever I'm in a conversation with someone who believes that the latter is the way to go, I'm going to try to steer them toward a healthier way of thinking. And if I see people pushing for games to change to give these unhealthy people ever easier and easier paths to the game's rewards, and thus reinforcing and perpetuating their unhealthy behavior, I'm going to be against that.

As I've said before, it's not really the fact that there are easy modes that bothers me. It's the fact that most games already have them, and people are still whining and asking for even easier modes and demanding that every single game have them, and now people are asking for a flat out skip button. It's alarming and concerning to me. It's disappointing.

And yeah, it probably won't affect me all that much in most single player games. Although nothing happens in a vacuum. Game design trends typically spread throughout the industry. But I don't always play single player games. And if more and more people I interact with in multiplayer games are, yes, infected with this unhealthy view, it certainly does affect me, because I have to interact with them in team play.

You can believe that or not. It's the internet. But that's genuinely how I feel.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Firstly, that would patronising, not elitism. Simply throwing words at me and hoping I'll be insulted by them isn't that easy ;)
Secondly, you're the one basing your assumption an everyone being you. You're the one assuming everyone has your exact level of prior experience, exact level of patience, exact level of free time. You're the sheltered trust fund kid wondering why everyone doesn't just go to Yale.
Thirdly, no, you're the one who's levelled actual not-even-implied insults at people who use easy mode, so pretty sure you're the one calling people inferior. Nice try.

Pallindromemordnillap:
... read my above reply to Kerg where he calls people whiny babies for not wanting to play on a hard mode. Hence why I feel pretty justified calling him an elitist, no misuse of the term at all, because belittling others is exactly what he's doing

Again, you're wrong. I'm not asking that everyone try to beat games on the hardest difficulty. I'm just asking that people put in the minimum effort that a game requires, instead of immediately giving up and whining and demanding that a game change to make things even easier or to allow them to skip content. And if calling those people out is insulting, then I hope it serves as a motivator.

You see that as elitist and belittling. I see it as one gamer saying to another gamer, "Come on dude, you can do better than that."

Here's something to make the thread bearable, if you haven't been doing so already.

Read the comments in Duke Amiel Du H'ardcore's voice. =w= b

Imp Emissary:
Here's something to make the thread bearable, if you haven't been doing so already.

Read the comments in Duke Amiel Du H'ardcore's voice. =w= b

That's actually pretty fucking funny. I tried it and I can't stop making myself laugh. Even my OWN posts.

Bad Jim:

Phoenixmgs:
Just look at Witcher 3 and how OPed just the Quen and Axii signs are, you could beat enemies of far above your level by exploiting powers you start the game with, it will take quite a bit longer to beat high-level enemies just due to your DPS cap but you can beat them rather easily without even taking any damage.

And that is exactly why you shouldn't just blindly apply damage scaling without playtesting the game. In this case, players can either use those signs effectively or they can't, and changing damage values won't change whether they can win fights.

My Witcher 3 example was of a developer not understanding balance to begin with so the game is unbalanced no matter what (outside of sheer luck). The way Quen and Axii work shouldn't have made it pass the conceptual stages of the game. Games aren't playtested like you think they are. Applying damage scaling without playtesting isn't going to break the game. You think the Souls games are tested in NG+ modes? A dev knows the max damage and health of player characters at any given point and it's just simple math to keep combat scaling similar whether you are level 1 doing 5 damage per hit vs 500 damage per hit on NG+ without needing to actually playtest. Damage scaling will help players that just don't notice broken mechanics or players that choose not to exploit said issues. An enemy taking 4 hits to kill vs 5 hits and a player character taking 5 hits to die instead of 4 hits makes fights objectively easier. And, obviously, reversing that makes fights harder to win.

CritialGaming:
But I am calling people out for demanding that EVERY game cater to their needs. That is absolutely insane, and if you truly believe that it doesn't hurt anything for you to have your way...you are wrong.

Every game, does NOT have to be for everybody.

I'm not fully versed in this argument with regards to the entirety of the gaming community but I've never seen anyone demand a game like Dark Souls have an easy mode. From what I've seen, the idea was just brought up in the sense of 'what if' or 'why not'. Then, fans of the game said it would RUIN the game and they demanded the game not be changed. The point is that an easy difficulty in a Souls game would not ruin the game or affect anyone that likes the games as they currently are. People that do indeed WANT (not demand) an easy mode in whatever game want such a mode because something about the game already interests them. If they were totally uninterested in a game, they wouldn't be asking (or possibly demanding) for anything. People that don't like baseball games aren't going to ask for those games to cater to them because baseball inherently doesn't interest them anyway.

Additional options can only improve a game.

CritialGaming:

Imp Emissary:
Here's something to make the thread bearable, if you haven't been doing so already.

Read the comments in Duke Amiel Du H'ardcore's voice. =w= b

That's actually pretty fucking funny. I tried it and I can't stop making myself laugh. Even my OWN posts.

The Duke's voice can improve anything. That's why he's the Duke....That and GENERATIONS of inbreeding (can't dilute perfection), but the speaking voice is paramount.

OT: To actually talk about the topic, I think there is a simple way for most of these issues to be solved. At least for single player games.

Put cheat codes back in! The staples like max money, god mode, all items, and fun ones like slow-motion, color changes, or big head mode.

It feels like they haven't been around at all since like GTA4, and I think they would solve a lot of the problems with accessibility. But as GameStop admitted recently, that probably won't happen cause publishers (and maybe some Devs too) want to charge money for pale imitations of cheat codes instead (pay to win or cosmetic micro-transactions).

Imp Emissary:
OT: To actually talk about the topic, I think there is a simple way for most of these issues to be solved. At least for single player games.

Put cheat codes back in! The staples like max money, god mode, all items, and fun ones like slow-motion, color changes, or big head mode.

It feels like they haven't been around at all since like GTA4, and I think they would solve a lot of the problems with accesablity. But as GameStop admited recently, that probably won't happen cause publishers (and maybe some Devs too) want to charge money for pale imitations of cheat codes instead (pay to win or cosmetic mircro-transactions).

Cheat codes were never a big thing. Only a small number of the games I played back then had them. I've never missed them.

Ezekiel:

Imp Emissary:
OT: To actually talk about the topic, I think there is a simple way for most of these issues to be solved. At least for single player games.

Put cheat codes back in! The staples like max money, god mode, all items, and fun ones like slow-motion, color changes, or big head mode.

It feels like they haven't been around at all since like GTA4, and I think they would solve a lot of the problems with accessibility. But as GameStop admitted recently, that probably won't happen cause publishers (and maybe some Devs too) want to charge money for pale imitations of cheat codes instead (pay to win or cosmetic micro-transactions).

Cheat codes were never a big thing. Only a small number of the games I played back then had them. I've never missed them.

So then you'd be fine with their further implementation? Since they seem to have not affected you at all.

I would like to attack one gatekeeping function found in many for example many space-games, but also defend it with regards to Destiny 2.

That is the automatic option that if you die, you should lose some/most/all your stuff in a single-player game.

As a gamer with a finite amount of time, I don't want to keep doing the same thing over, and over. I don't want to die over, and over again.

Options in this cases are the clear winner.

A game could easily state the preferred method of playing in a game is hard more, or medium difficulty mode for Dark Souls. It could state the option to lose all your stuff is the preferred tested experience.

At the same time, some games make a game more accessible in stupidly damaging ways. Destiny 2 made the guns easier to get, and now the game only lasts so long in order to attract the 2 hours a day video gamer.

In my opinion single player games should have different difficulty and options, but multiplayer, and Co-op games with an end-game should try to make that end-game as long as possible, and til the next game.

Why don't all the people who want easy modes for everything just pick up this handy gadget from the AVGN! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUeeFybkRxA

hanselthecaretaker:
Snip

Hate to break it to you, but they are. There are just points in life where values don't hold as much as they do in others. For example, the value of never telling a lie. You don't lie when it comes to you doing something wrong that you need to own up to. Telling a little white lie to make someone else feel better?

Yeah, except I honestly am seeing people turning up their noses at the very concept of an easy mode. Do I need to get the quote from CriticalGaming where he talked about how he would be tempted by it and acted like that was comparable to the snake in the Garden of Eden? Or the quote where concepts like this were refereed to as an infection. And it seriously, seriously, would have no impact on your life at all.

I was the one arguing for those built in easy modes existing and being good. There is no point in some predetermined difficulty select? Oh well, this is going to upset you. See, the Dark Souls dev decided that when it came to difficulty select and subtle in game changes, they decided that both was good. The Company of Champions in Dark Souls 2 is nowhere near as subtle as the other changes, and its basically turning the game on hard mode. The only difference between it and a hard mode, as opposed to all the other things in Dark Souls, is that it's not in the main menu.

Well that's a nice opinion, but the thing is, one size doesn't fit all. Ever. I understand that, for reasons I will never be able to comprehend, you hate the idea of selecting your difficulty. But people like being able to tweak their experiences, and I fail to see how that's a bad thing. And to be perfectly frank, GTA seriously needed an easy mode, because it could get hard in ways that were more frustrating than fun, particularly with how hard it was to throw the cops off you in V.

Bad Jim:

Kyrian007:
That is something that I'm wondering though, does anyone do any playtesting anymore?

I can see why you would wonder about that. But you are probably thinking of games like Skyrim or Witcher 3 that lean heavily on story or messing about and not so much on challenge. Challenge based games need a lot of playtesting to be good, and it seems to me that challenge based games are the focus of discussion.

Have you seen the version history for Dark Souls 3? Shouldn't "extensive playtesting" have caught any 1 of those hundreds of bugs and issues? Remember, there was a time when playtesting needed to catch ALL bugs and issues before launch. DS 3 has pages of issues patched after launch. Sure Skyrim has more, but challenge based games aren't much different really.

erttheking:

.

Using white lies to support a notion of rationalizing principle levels...sounds like the straw man's back at it. It can also be a slippery slope depending on the lie.

I can't speak for anyone else, but people generally tend to exaggerate to help emphasize a point, especially on the internet.

Again, the way Dark Souls is designed, it doesn't need a difficulty select. Even if FROM lamented the issue as much as you say, they ultimately never decided to include one. The fact that the games can have varying levels of challenge without needing a difficulty select only works in their favor, and justifies their decision to exclude one.

Having said that, in the end of course this is ultimately a stalemate issue. People take their stance and I'm not sure how much convincing of anything has been accomplished. It is no more absurd that game developers have a right to forgoe the inclusion of an easy mode than deciding all games need one.

But since I'm stubborn/masochistic, here's yet another example of the point myself and several others have been trying to make here:

If I buy a cook book filled with different recipes and see some tasty looking ones that are far beyond my cooking skills, I'm not going to start wringing the publisher out to dry for not including an easy-bake option for all of them. No, if I want to cook that shit bad enough, I'll learn how to do it, even if it takes me twenty bloody attempts. I'll also appreciate it a hell of a lot more than if I forced the book to change to appease my lack of skill, or efffort.

Phoenixmgs:
Additional options can only improve a game.

I disagree that more options is always better.

If an obese person is trying to lose weight, is it good for his fridge to be stocked with pies and cakes? If a crack addict is trying to quit, should he carry around some crack in his pocket, you know, just to have the option there?

My 12-year old cat has never been even a little bit overweight. You know why? Because I have 100% control over how much he is allowed to eat, and I don't overfeed him. In fact, on the weekends, instead of feeding him right away when I get up in the morning, I usually let him "stalk" me for a couple hours. He'll zig zag between my legs begging. He'll wait in the hallway, and every time I get up, he meows and runs to his bowl. Sometimes he'll even get aggravated and sneak up behind me at my computer desk and "attack" me, before running to his bowl. After a couple of hours of doing this, I finally feed him. I do this, because I know that as soon he eats, he's probably going to go take a 12 hour nap and be pretty much done for the day. So I give him an obstacle to overcome so he doesn't sleep his life away.

I have read that some animal sanctuaries give chimps treats that are inside of some sort of container, so to get the treat, the chimp has to figure out how to open the container first. It's called "enrichment." Because apparently studies have shown that chimps are happier if their brains are stimulated and they have challenges to overcome.

Now I'm not saying that we as humans would be better off losing all of the freedoms we have and live in some 1984-style dictatorship. But in a gaming world, guess what? It's a dictatorship. The developers have full control over everything. When you pay your $60, you are nothing more than a lab rat paying for the opportunity to participate in the maze that the developer has designed. And if the developer wants to design the maze so that we have to overcome obstacles to get the cheese, maybe it's because their research has shown that gamers enjoy the experience more that way. Maybe it's because it gives people self-esteem and a sense of accomplishment, and they don't want to rob the player of that by making it too easy to get the cheese.

More options are not always better, because people often don't know what is best for them or don't have the self-discipline to do what is best for them.

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

Well then, at this point you are just flipping everything around on people to fit your view point. Bending arguments and points to fit your opinion, and as a result I have nothing more to say, as there isn't much point to talking to a wall.

Provide some counter points, instead of slapping back labels and exaggerations.

The guy telling me to provide counter points has provided no actual counter points to my arguments. They guy who said in his previous reply to me that people not answering questions about skip buttons made him feel justified in his opinion is now not answering my questions.
Just because you don't like my questions or the answers you know you have to give, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Trying to brush me off just makes me think you know I'm right but don't want to admit it.

Kerg3927:
You're wrong. I genuinely believe that overcoming challenges and obtaining the appropriate rewards is healthy for people, and that giving up easily and whining until they get the reward handed to them is very unhealthy. And whenever I'm in a conversation with someone who believes that the latter is the way to go, I'm going to try to steer them toward a healthier way of thinking. And if I see people pushing for games to change to give these unhealthy people ever easier and easier paths to the game's rewards, and thus reinforcing and perpetuating their unhealthy behavior, I'm going to be against that.

As I've said before, it's not really the fact that there are easy modes that bothers me. It's the fact that most games already have them, and people are still whining and asking for even easier modes and demanding that every single game have them, and now people are asking for a flat out skip button. It's alarming and concerning to me. It's disappointing.

And yeah, it probably won't affect me all that much in most single player games. Although nothing happens in a vacuum. Game design trends typically spread throughout the industry. But I don't always play single player games. And if more and more people I interact with in multiplayer games are, yes, infected with this unhealthy view, it certainly does affect me, because I have to interact with them in team play.

You can believe that or not. It's the internet. But that's genuinely how I feel.

And once again we run into ego. "These people are not doing things the way I do things. Weird and wrong!" Why is it unhealthy? Why do you consider it inferior? Why do you automatically believe it's someone being entitled and whiny and not someone going "Oof, this is a bit of a strain, looks like I need to tone things down until I've got a better hang of it." This is once again you being apparently incapable of thinking about being in someone else's shoes

Kerg3927:
Again, you're wrong. I'm not asking that everyone try to beat games on the hardest difficulty. I'm just asking that people put in the minimum effort that a game requires, instead of immediately giving up and whining and demanding that a game change to make things even easier or to allow them to skip content. And if calling those people out is insulting, then I hope it serves as a motivator.

You see that as elitist and belittling. I see it as one gamer saying to another gamer, "Come on dude, you can do better than that."

Dude, I can go and grab a number of quotes from this topic of you insulting people who don't play on hard mode. Remember? I criticised you for apparently thinking you were Theoden under siege at Helm's Deep when you started using words like "infest"? We both know you aren't the Kindly Benefactor just looking out for people, you're an elitist who doesn't like his gated community not being so locked down.
Case in point, if you don't mind people putting in minimum effort, why so against everything having an easy mode? Thats literally what an easy mode is, the minimum effort. By your own logic you should have no problem with it

Kyrian007:

Bad Jim:

Kyrian007:
That is something that I'm wondering though, does anyone do any playtesting anymore?

I can see why you would wonder about that. But you are probably thinking of games like Skyrim or Witcher 3 that lean heavily on story or messing about and not so much on challenge. Challenge based games need a lot of playtesting to be good, and it seems to me that challenge based games are the focus of discussion.

Have you seen the version history for Dark Souls 3? Shouldn't "extensive playtesting" have caught any 1 of those hundreds of bugs and issues? Remember, there was a time when playtesting needed to catch ALL bugs and issues before launch. DS 3 has pages of issues patched after launch. Sure Skyrim has more, but challenge based games aren't much different really.

Playtesting has never caught ALL bugs before launch. Join the speedrunning community and you will discover that most old games have all sorts of abusable glitches. For example, it is possible to beat Ocarina of Time in about twenty minutes by skipping 90% of the game.

Even very basic stuff like having a dozen or so people complete the game has a significant cost, and when there are multiple difficulties and different classes/builds there is a combinatorial explosion of things that might go wrong. So it is to be expected that even a reasonably large playtesting team will still miss lots of stuff.

However, the difference between Dark Souls and Skyrim is not the number of bugs. It's the fact that Dark Souls is a structured challenge and Skyrim is a playground to mess about in. If you arbitrarily mess around with damage values etc Dark Souls will not be a structured challenge, but Skyrim will still be a playground to mess about in.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Dude, I can go and grab a number of quotes from this topic of you insulting people who don't play on hard mode. Remember? I criticised you for apparently thinking you were Theoden under siege at Helm's Deep when you started using words like "infest"?

IMO, this whole discussion arose because of three main issues...

1) Some people complaining that Cuphead's easy mode wasn't easy enough. They wanted it made easier. normal mode gave more rewards than its easy mode. They demanded equal rewards for both modes.

2) Someone wrote a click-bait article arguing that games should have a skip button.

3) In response to the above, people brought back the old topic of some people wanting the Souls games to have an easy mode added.

I disagree with all three of those. My view (particularly regarding the latter two, because I haven't played Cuphead) is...

Quit whining and wanting easy or easier modes added to every game, just because you don't want to put in the minimum effort that the game requires. Most games already have an easy mode. If you can't put forth the effort to beat it on the easiest level, then that's on you, not the developer. And if you don't want to do that, go play other games. Quit complaining. It's embarrassing.

Not once have I insulted anyone who doesn't play games on hard mode or said that any easy modes currently in existence in games should be removed. That's again you trying to put words in my mouth to support your argument. Stop doing that.

Pallindromemordnillap:
We both know you aren't the Kindly Benefactor just looking out for people, you're an elitist who doesn't like his gated community not being so locked down.

I told you to believe or not. It's the internet. You obviously don't believe me. That's fine. I don't believe everything I read on the internet, either.

What I'm arguing for is not to lock down a gated community, but to convince people to suck it up and learn to play so they are not locked out of experiencing the satisfaction of beating the game as it was intended by the developers. Again, my message is... You can do better than that, quit complaining and learn to play. You won't regret it. The feeling of beating it on your own without it being handed to you for free is pretty cool. Building self-esteem and pride in accomplishment are very, very good things.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Case in point, if you don't mind people putting in minimum effort, why so against everything having an easy mode? Thats literally what an easy mode is, the minimum effort. By your own logic you should have no problem with it

No, the minimum effort is the effort required of games as they currently exist. Minimum effort in Cuphead means beating it on the current easy mode. Minimum effort in Dark Souls means beating it on its only current mode, without adding an easy mode. Minimum effort in all games means beating it without a skip button.

Pallindromemordnillap:
And once again we run into ego. "These people are not doing things the way I do things. Weird and wrong!" Why is it unhealthy? Why do you consider it inferior? Why do you automatically believe it's someone being entitled and whiny and not someone going "Oof, this is a bit of a strain, looks like I need to tone things down until I've got a better hang of it." This is once again you being apparently incapable of thinking about being in someone else's shoes

I've been there. I've struggled in games. And every time I didn't quit, I was later glad that I didn't. And it felt great finally overcoming the obstacle. I'd like others to feel that, too.

I understand that not everyone agrees that overcoming obstacles matters. I disagree for the reasons I've stated.

You and I are like Yoda and Emperor Palpatine arguing, so we're never going to agree. I think I'm Yoda and you're the Emperor. You think you're Yoda and I'm the evil Emperor. Except Yoda didn't tell Luke to take the quick and easy path, did he?

Kerg3927:

You and I are like Yoda and Emperor Palpatine arguing, so we're never going to agree. I think I'm Yoda and you're the Emperor. You think you're Yoda and I'm the evil Emperor. Except Yoda didn't tell Luke to take the quick and easy path, did he?

Shit dude. You just got all deep on him like that?

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
Additional options can only improve a game.

I disagree that more options is always better.

If an obese person is trying to lose weight, is it good for his fridge to be stocked with pies and cakes? If a crack addict is trying to quit, should he carry around some crack in his pocket, you know, just to have the option there?

My 12-year old cat has never been even a little bit overweight. You know why? Because I have 100% control over how much he is allowed to eat, and I don't overfeed him. In fact, on the weekends, instead of feeding him right away when I get up in the morning, I usually let him "stalk" me for a couple hours. He'll zig zag between my legs begging. He'll wait in the hallway, and every time I get up, he meows and runs to his bowl. Sometimes he'll even get aggravated and sneak up behind me at my computer desk and "attack" me, before running to his bowl. After a couple of hours of doing this, I finally feed him. I do this, because I know that as soon he eats, he's probably going to go take a 12 hour nap and be pretty much done for the day. So I give him an obstacle to overcome so he doesn't sleep his life away.

I have read that some animal sanctuaries give chimps treats that are inside of some sort of container, so to get the treat, the chimp has to figure out how to open the container first. It's called "enrichment." Because apparently studies have shown that chimps are happier if their brains are stimulated and they have challenges to overcome.

Now I'm not saying that we as humans would be better off losing all of the freedoms we have and live in some 1984-style dictatorship. But in a gaming world, guess what? It's a dictatorship. The developers have full control over everything. When you pay your $60, you are nothing more than a lab rat paying for the opportunity to participate in the maze that the developer has designed. And if the developer wants to design the maze so that we have to overcome obstacles to get the cheese, maybe it's because their research has shown that gamers enjoy the experience more that way. Maybe it's because it gives people self-esteem and a sense of accomplishment, and they don't want to rob the player of that by making it too easy to get the cheese.

More options are not always better, because people often don't know what is best for them or don't have the self-discipline to do what is best for them.

That's a pretty bad analog because it's just like the saying everyone should consume 2,000 calories a day but that varies from person-to-person based on their metabolism and how calories they burn. One set diet will not work for every person or every cat just like one set difficulty doesn't work for every person either.

Kerg3927:
Some people complaining that Cuphead's easy mode wasn't easy enough. They wanted it made easier.

Is that true? I believe the real issue with Cuphead's easy mode is that it doesn't let you finish the game, which is kind of a dick move really.

Bad Jim:

Kerg3927:
Some people complaining that Cuphead's easy mode wasn't easy enough. They wanted it made easier.

Is that true? I believe the real issue with Cuphead's easy mode is that it doesn't let you finish the game, which is kind of a dick move really.

Actually, I think you're right. I haven't played Cuphead. I edited my post.

Bad Jim:

Kerg3927:
Some people complaining that Cuphead's easy mode wasn't easy enough. They wanted it made easier.

Is that true? I believe the real issue with Cuphead's easy mode is that it doesn't let you finish the game, which is kind of a dick move really.

This is essentially the same as many games have had in the past, play something that isn't 'very-kinda-easy' to get the 'real' ending.
Not new for any game.

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
Additional options can only improve a game.

I disagree that more options is always better.

If an obese person is trying to lose weight, is it good for his fridge to be stocked with pies and cakes? If a crack addict is trying to quit, should he carry around some crack in his pocket, you know, just to have the option there?

My 12-year old cat has never been even a little bit overweight. You know why? Because I have 100% control over how much he is allowed to eat, and I don't overfeed him. In fact, on the weekends, instead of feeding him right away when I get up in the morning, I usually let him "stalk" me for a couple hours. He'll zig zag between my legs begging. He'll wait in the hallway, and every time I get up, he meows and runs to his bowl. Sometimes he'll even get aggravated and sneak up behind me at my computer desk and "attack" me, before running to his bowl. After a couple of hours of doing this, I finally feed him. I do this, because I know that as soon he eats, he's probably going to go take a 12 hour nap and be pretty much done for the day. So I give him an obstacle to overcome so he doesn't sleep his life away.

I have read that some animal sanctuaries give chimps treats that are inside of some sort of container, so to get the treat, the chimp has to figure out how to open the container first. It's called "enrichment." Because apparently studies have shown that chimps are happier if their brains are stimulated and they have challenges to overcome.

Now I'm not saying that we as humans would be better off losing all of the freedoms we have and live in some 1984-style dictatorship. But in a gaming world, guess what? It's a dictatorship. The developers have full control over everything. When you pay your $60, you are nothing more than a lab rat paying for the opportunity to participate in the maze that the developer has designed. And if the developer wants to design the maze so that we have to overcome obstacles to get the cheese, maybe it's because their research has shown that gamers enjoy the experience more that way. Maybe it's because it gives people self-esteem and a sense of accomplishment, and they don't want to rob the player of that by making it too easy to get the cheese.

More options are not always better, because people often don't know what is best for them or don't have the self-discipline to do what is best for them.

That's a pretty bad analog because it's just like the saying everyone should consume 2,000 calories a day but that varies from person-to-person based on their metabolism and how calories they burn. One set diet will not work for every person or every cat just like one set difficulty doesn't work for every person either.

No, it's like saying that it's okay for a bar to stop serving someone alcohol after they've already had 10 shots of tequila. Having the option to buy an 11th shot, doesn't necessarily make it a better bar. And the person drinking is not entitled to order that 11th shot. The business can tell them no if they want to. It's their bar.

Kerg3927:
IMO, this whole discussion arose because of three main issues...

1) Some people complaining that Cuphead's easy mode wasn't easy enough. They wanted it made easier. normal mode gave more rewards than its easy mode. They demanded equal rewards for both modes.

2) Someone wrote a click-bait article arguing that games should have a skip button.

3) In response to the above, people brought back the old topic of some people wanting the Souls games to have an easy mode added.

I disagree with all three of those. My view (particularly regarding the latter two, because I haven't played Cuphead) is...

Quit whining and wanting easy or easier modes added to every game, just because you don't want to put in the minimum effort that the game requires. Most games already have an easy mode. If you can't put forth the effort to beat it on the easiest level, then that's on you, not the developer. And if you don't want to do that, go play other games. Quit complaining. It's embarrassing.

Once again you simultaneously tell people to stop whining while saying "Get out of my game! It's my game! You can't have it!"
You're also not explaining why adding easier modes would be a bad thing. They're games. They're designed to be played. If a player is saying "Hey I could use a hand with this bit" then why should the developer not lend them a hand with that bit? Why does lowering difficulty intrinsically devalue worth to you? Why do you see someone having trouble with something as lack of effort and not, you know, having trouble with something? You see someone lying on the ground do you tut and tell them to just work harder at standing up or do you go over to help and see whats wrong?

Kerg3927:
Not once have I insulted anyone who doesn't play games on hard mode or said that any easy modes currently in existence in games should be removed. That's again you trying to put words in my mouth to support your argument. Stop doing that.

Wrong:

Kerg3927:
Nope, it's more like the other way around. The casuals drew first blood, and they are the ones making demands. Those on my side just want difficult games to have their current form preserved. We're the victims. We're the ones defending against the mean attackers.

I have yet to see anyone on my side of the argument demand that any current easy games be made more difficult, or that easy modes be removed from any games. Keep your easy games. We don't give a shit about them. Just leave the difficult games we love alone. That's all we're asking.

As Meiam pointed out, most games are already easy. We have very few difficult games left. Why do you have to demand that those few that we have be changed to suit your liking, too? "Entitled" is far too weak of a word to describe it, IMO.

That would be you degrading people who play easy mode as some sort of horde besieging you and your precious "hardcore" games.

Kerg3927:
And that is something that I believe can affect (infect?) the entire gaming industry as a whole, as it trends toward more dumbed down content and less challenging content. Because of the finite resources available, increasing the former is going to result in a decrease of the latter.

Aaaaaand here would be you describing playing easy mode as an infection that you think devalues the apparent entirety of gaming.

Kerg3927:
There's an amateur mixed martial arts tournament (MMA). Anyone can enter for $60. Some out of shape guy with noodle arms and a beer gut, who's never been to a gym, never practiced martial arts, walks into the registration office and pays $60 to sign up.

And then there's this analogy where you describe your "casual gamer" stand in as fat and lazy which pretty clearly gives away your opinion there

Kerg3927:
IMO, there are generally two types of people in this thread. Those who hear Rocky music and get pumped up and motivated to put forth more effort to get better. And those who hear Rocky music and don't feel anything, and they can't understand why Rocky didn't just quit.

Same here where you label everyone as people who can manage hard mode and are therefore trying and people who can't and must therefore be lazy failures.

Kerg3927:
I told you to believe or not. It's the internet. You obviously don't believe me. That's fine. I don't believe everything I read on the internet, either.

Belief is for people who don't have facts. Facts like all those quotes I just provided. Kind of hard for me to take your attempts at presenting yourself as Kindly Benefactor seriously when I can just go back and see for myself all the times you were most definitely degrading everyone who doesn't play "your way"

Kerg3927:
What I'm arguing for is not to lock down a gated community, but to convince people to suck it up and learn to play so they are not locked out of experiencing the satisfaction of beating the game as it was intended by the developers. Again, my message is... You can do better than that, quit complaining and learn to play. You won't regret it. The feeling of beating it on your own without it being handed to you for free is pretty cool. Building self-esteem and pride in accomplishment are very, very good things.

And they still have that satisfaction. They still get the pride. I keep telling you this. Managing to beat the game on the terms that are suitable for them (be it starting easier and working up or remaining on easy the whole way through, whichever) doesn't matter to them, only to you. Which is why you come off as the elitist, entitled asshole, because you are the one trying to actually diminish people's accomplishments and take their fun away

Kerg3927:
No, the minimum effort is the effort required of games as they currently exist. Minimum effort in Cuphead means beating it on the current easy mode. Minimum effort in Dark Souls means beating it on its only current mode, without adding an easy mode. Minimum effort in all games means beating it without a skip button.

Why though? Why is a completely arbitrary way the designers have set things up mean the game has to stay at that completely arbitrary setting? Why not add in a easier level if people request one? Hell, purely from practical stand point it means more money because now you've got a larger audience who'll buy your game.
And you're doing what CritialGaming did which is just throw out "Yeah but Skip Buttons though" as though its a be all and end all to every argument. Do you honestly think simply having a skip button means people will whizz through a game's entirety in five minutes and not actually do anything in that game? Like, really? You genuinely think that?
In fact, lets run you through a scenario here: I'm playing Rome Total War and have sent a small force to put down a band of brigands in my territory. I've got larger, more important battles to manage elsewhere so can't be arsed dealing with this small issue that I know I can't lose, so allow the AI to automanage the fight. I have essentially skipped a part of the game. Do you take issue with that? Do you have a problem? Do you think I should have personally watched as my praetorian cavalry smashed the two units of peasants? Do think I feel any less accomplished at having not micromanaged this one battle?

Kerg3927:
I've been there. I've struggled in games. And every time I didn't quit, I was later glad that I didn't. And it felt great finally overcoming the obstacle. I'd like others to feel that, too.

I understand that not everyone agrees that overcoming obstacles matters. I disagree for the reasons I've stated.

You and I are like Yoda and Emperor Palpatine arguing, so we're never going to agree. I think I'm Yoda and you're the Emperor. You think you're Yoda and I'm the evil Emperor. Except Yoda didn't tell Luke to take the quick and easy path, did he?

I mean, neither did the Emperor. Unless you count "Hey, kill everyone you know and love" as the easy path. Which would say worrying things about you, tbh.
Though, to be honest, I don't see you as the Emperor. You're really more Ponda Baba, bragging about his twelve death sentences because its the only way he derives his self-worth and complaining that Obi-Wan is cheap and entitled when he lops your arm off because using a lightsaber is the easy mode

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 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