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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 15 NEXT
 

I think that half of the argument here stems from people who are too bad at a game but which don't want to actually play and try to improve at and another half from the people who look down on those people for lacking a traditional characteristic of being a gamer in the desire to improve and beat games.

Games are all mainly about achieving fun through competition. In single player games you're competing with the AI so it may not feel like competition in the same way multiplayer does but as long as there's a win condition your brain is designed to want to win and to feel bad for losing. You do have some more "experience style" games where just walking around is all that the game has to offer but even something like a visual novel has bad ends and such so you feel a bit of satisfaction when you get the true end.

Where friction arises is in a group of players who don't like the games they play enough to get good at them but who are still negatively affected by their failure to achieve that win condition all the same. It's the I don't enjoy winning but I hate losing mentality on steroids. Thing is, when you have that mentality, even if the game is made easier, you're still not gonna enjoy it all that much anyhow. Your enjoyment is directly proportional to how much effort out of you a game can summon. The more you like a game, the more willing you will be to work at getting better at it.

Now, I'm not gonna tell people to just play something else, because in playing a game one may discover something to motivate them to get good, but the notion that a game would be significantly more enjoyable by being easier is a fallacy. You'll feel better about your EGO not being bruised but no. The game won't magically turn fun.

Kerg3927:

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.

I notice that in each of these examples, you're talking about somebody (or something) that engages in compulsive, uncontrolled behaviour, or somebody whose decision-making faculties are poor. Is that how poorly you consider the cognitive abilities of the average gamer to be...? We cannot make decisions for ourselves?

(This is aside from the fact that these analogies also rely on the behaviour itself being self-destructive, too, which doesn't translate to the current topic).

All round shoddy analogies.

Kerg3927:

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.

The designers have the last word, yes. Why on earth is that a reason for players to shut up about what they want to play?

Game developers do not merely want to create a damn maze; very often, they want to create something people will enjoy. Ditto, artists across other artistic media. Criticism and feedback has been an integral part of the creative process from its inception, and it helps in the design: this is why countless developers actively seek feedback, and don't just want their own audience to shut up and take it.

I find it utterly bizarre that people would ever want to divorce feedback and criticism from artistic endeavour. It is utterly inseparable, a fact many developers recognise and endorse.

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).

Personally I'm fine with cheat code, there's no expectation that the game will be balanced with people using cheat code in mind and they should be fairly easy to implement. They'll lead to weird difficulty curve and broken game, but that shouldn't affect review and such. Obviously the game shouldn't be tested with cheat code so it may lead to some section being broken, but the dev can just leave a message when going into the cheat menu to that effect. I don't really care about achievement, but it might be a good idea to disable them when activating cheat code, but personally idc.

Meiam:

Imp Emissary:

Personally, I'm fine with cheat codes. There's no expectation that the game will be balanced with people using cheat code in mind and they should be fairly easy to implement. They'll lead to weird difficulty curve and broken game, but that shouldn't affect review and such. Obviously, the game shouldn't be tested with cheat code so it may lead to some section being broken, but the dev can just leave a message when going into the cheat menu to that effect. I don't really care about achievement, but it might be a good idea to disable them when activating cheat code, but personally idc.

Yeah, that's what the few that kept cheat codes in have done when it comes to achievements and trophies. Same with mods on X-box one and PS4. If you use them on the save file, it becomes marked, and you can't earn them.

That said, while they may not have to worry about balance exactly, they should play test cheats to make sure they work as intended and what not.
Also, as a way to get around the whole "I don't want dev time devoted to other options" complaint, the devs could add them in in a post-launch update. Like some have done recently with Newgame+ modes, harder modes, and easier modes.

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

There's obviously an irreconcilable disconnect here, so arguing with you is pointless.

I grew up playing sports (mostly American football). I'm a huge American football and basketball fan. I'm a sports guy. I also raided in WoW for a long time, which is very much like a team sport (minus the exercise). If one of my teammates is underperforming, my inclination is to say something like, "Come on man, you can do better than that." If they wanted to quit, I'd probably tell them, "Aww, dude, don't give up now. Keep going, you'll get it." I might even be a smartass and say, "Don't be such a pussy."

I see that as harmless motivation, something to benefit them. And I think they usually see it that way, too. But not you. It's crystal clear in your mind that it's just me being a horrible elitist asshole who is insulting that poor person who is merely exercising his right to quit.

So if we can't get past that, I think we're done here.

Kerg3927:
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.

The exact reason why bars don't stop people from drinking after a set amount of drinks is the exact reason that proves the point why difficulty levels are good. Everyone is different with regards to how much alcohol they can handle along with variables such as what they've recently had to eat. Same thing with game difficulty, some people will find a Souls game too hard while someone else finds it too easy, having difficulty levels isn't going to hurt anyone.

Silvanus:
All round shoddy analogies.

I keep telling him that! He's no good at this stuff but bless him he tries

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

There's obviously an irreconcilable disconnect here, so arguing with you is pointless.

I grew up playing sports (mostly American football). I'm a huge American football and basketball fan. I'm a sports guy. I also raided in WoW for a long time, which is very much like a team sport (minus the exercise). If one of my teammates is underperforming, my inclination is to say something like, "Come on man, you can do better than that." If they wanted to quit, I'd probably tell them, "Aww, dude, don't give up now. Keep going, you'll get it." I might even be a smartass and say, "Don't be such a pussy."

I see that as harmless motivation, something to benefit them. And I think they usually see it that way, too. But not you. It's crystal clear in your mind that it's just me being a horrible elitist asshole who is insulting that poor person who is merely exercising his right to quit.

So if we can't get past that, I think we're done here.

Okay, problem here is that its a team mate in your analogy: Its someone you've played with before, someone who's level of skill you are aware of and used to. So imagine now its someone completely new to you,someone you've never seen play before and have no idea what level they're at. You see them "underperforming" are you just going to chide them the same way you would the dude you know? You going to just assume they should be on your level? Or are you going to find out if they've ever played the game before, going to find out if they've got some injury thats slowing them up, going to see if they need some pointers and advice and not someone shouting "Just fucking try!"?
This is why your "Oh I'm just a friendly patron trying to help people" schtick has never flown with me. Because at no point in this topic have you actually considered legitimately helping people. Just yelling at them from the sidelines about how they need to try harder or just magically know how to get better. Thats not Yoda mate, wrong puppet, thats Statler and Waldorf heckling because it makes them feel better about themselves.
Oh and trying insist this is all just "in my mind" is kind of futile given I already went and scoured for some quotes where you do exactly what I'm accusing you of. Want me to find more?

Honestly, the mentions of Dark Souls having an extra difficulty mode amuses me because the games have about a dozen extra-difficult NG+ modes, which are really mostly just... well, giving the enemies extra HP and damage. You're honestly telling me the DS devs don't have time to do it the other way around? And maybe alter some of the more bullshit sections?

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay, problem here is that its a team mate in your analogy: Its someone you've played with before, someone who's level of skill you are aware of and used to. So imagine now its someone completely new to you,someone you've never seen play before and have no idea what level they're at. You see them "underperforming" are you just going to chide them the same way you would the dude you know? You going to just assume they should be on your level? Or are you going to find out if they've ever played the game before, going to find out if they've got some injury thats slowing them up, going to see if they need some pointers and advice and not someone shouting "Just fucking try!"?
This is why your "Oh I'm just a friendly patron trying to help people" schtick has never flown with me. Because at no point in this topic have you actually considered legitimately helping people. Just yelling at them from the sidelines about how they need to try harder or just magically know how to get better. Thats not Yoda mate, wrong puppet, thats Statler and Waldorf heckling because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Most games provide tutorials. If they are still struggling, "pointers and advice" for games have never been more plentiful. This is not 1986. We have Google now. You can't throw a rock into the Google search function without hitting a lake of advice, for any game. Google "[insert name of game] tips" and bam, pointers and advice out the kazoo. I do it all the time. If it's a team mate, yeah, I'll try to help him/her directly if I can. Otherwise, if they can't figure out the basic functions of a game on the easiest mode available, I think it's a fair assumption to make that they probably haven't tried very hard at all.

But maybe I have too much faith in people. You seem to think they are incapable. Difference of opinion, I guess.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Oh and trying insist this is all just "in my mind" is kind of futile given I already went and scoured for some quotes where you do exactly what I'm accusing you of. Want me to find more?

And again, difference of opinion. What you see as evil, mean, elitism with the sole intent of making myself feel good, I see as simply motivational speech. So your quotes don't mean anything, because we interpret them entirely differently.

I think before getting out the pitchforks and looking for someone ELSE to blame for their struggles, before demanding that a game change for them, people should first look at themselves, and ask what they can do better. Is that too much to ask?

Analogy time again. I see a frustrated caterpillar crawling around, and I tell him, dude, just spin a chrysalis, and you can turn into a butterfly! You see the frustrated caterpillar, and tell him, no it's perfectly okay to just give up and spend the rest of your life crawling around as larva, while blaming everyone else for the fact that you can't fly.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Okay, problem here is that its a team mate in your analogy: Its someone you've played with before, someone who's level of skill you are aware of and used to. So imagine now its someone completely new to you,someone you've never seen play before and have no idea what level they're at. You see them "underperforming" are you just going to chide them the same way you would the dude you know? You going to just assume they should be on your level? Or are you going to find out if they've ever played the game before, going to find out if they've got some injury thats slowing them up, going to see if they need some pointers and advice and not someone shouting "Just fucking try!"?
This is why your "Oh I'm just a friendly patron trying to help people" schtick has never flown with me. Because at no point in this topic have you actually considered legitimately helping people. Just yelling at them from the sidelines about how they need to try harder or just magically know how to get better. Thats not Yoda mate, wrong puppet, thats Statler and Waldorf heckling because it makes them feel better about themselves.
Oh and trying insist this is all just "in my mind" is kind of futile given I already went and scoured for some quotes where you do exactly what I'm accusing you of. Want me to find more?

And here is the problem with your problem with his analogy. Competitive sports has a skill REQUIREMENT. Even if this "new" player is underperforming because the team doesn't know his skill level, it doesn't mean that this underperforming player isn't required to step up play to be on competitive equality with the rest of the team. That's how sports GAMES work. That's how games work period. A game is designed that it requires a certain level of skill to win, and the weakest person on the team usually doesn't get to be on the team long.

That's what I think you keep floating over. Many of these games have "easy" modes in them already. Cuphead has a simple mode, Dark Souls and Bloodborne have Co-Op (plus different build styles that make the game much easier), yet you say that these may not meet everyone's difficulty needs? Which the entire point of this thread is you CAN'T meet everyone's needs or wants for a game. If a person cannot beat the game on the easiest available setting what is the solution? A Walkthrough mode? A mode where you can just walk to the end of the game and the challenges just solve themselves in front of you?

I guess the easiest possible answer is put a "god" mode in every game. That way a player who finds the game too difficult can breeze through it. I would actually be fine with this, because they at least have to play the game. Think about this, say Dark Souls had a god mode where you were completely invulnerable to damage, you could play through the game at virtually no risk save for falling of the map (or getting knocked off by an enemy). A player in this situation could play through, learn how to control their character, dodge attacks, learn boss patterns, and might turn off the god mode to play the game for real. That would be totally fine.

But at the end of the day games do not NEED easier modes, or outright cheats. If the developers put them there, great, have at it. Just don't insist and demand that an easy mode or cheats get put into a game that the developers opted not to include. They have every right to make their game for whatever audience they want, just like you have the right to not play or support those games.

I'm not opposed to difficulty settings in games, they tend to add replay value and to date one of my most intense gaming experiences ever was playing through Halo on legendary when I was 11.

That said I don't want them in soulsborne games. For a couple of reasons, I think that Miyazaki and his team do a pretty good job of creating organic difficulty selectors in game mechanics. Pretty much any boss is a cakewalk if you pump vitality and summon two phantoms to help you gank it. Magic is safe and powerful, and you can use the various types to exploit elemental weaknesses and do even more damage from a safe distance. Dark Souls 2 had the covenant of champions, which I loved. If you joined it, it basically set enemies and encounters to ng+ mode right away, spawning in the extra red phantom versions of enemies. It also rewarded you for progressing in this mode with a ring that made your bare fists some of the strongest weapons in the game, which was fun and awesome.

The other reason, and the one much more important to me, is twinks. In the souls games, a twink refers to a very low level character that someone has used to progress through the game to acquire late game gear, weapons, magic, or a higher number of healing charges. A min maxed twink build will beat out the vast majority of low level players in damage, defense, and access to healing. Still though, it's very difficult to beat some late game bosses with a low health pool and un-upgraded weapons, so you don't see it too often.

Basically i'm selfish and I did the hard thing so I could stomp all over bad gankers and I don't want those same gankers to be able to get back at me.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay, problem here is that its a team mate in your analogy: Its someone you've played with before, someone who's level of skill you are aware of and used to. So imagine now its someone completely new to you,someone you've never seen play before and have no idea what level they're at. You see them "underperforming" are you just going to chide them the same way you would the dude you know? You going to just assume they should be on your level? Or are you going to find out if they've ever played the game before, going to find out if they've got some injury thats slowing them up, going to see if they need some pointers and advice and not someone shouting "Just fucking try!"?
This is why your "Oh I'm just a friendly patron trying to help people" schtick has never flown with me. Because at no point in this topic have you actually considered legitimately helping people. Just yelling at them from the sidelines about how they need to try harder or just magically know how to get better. Thats not Yoda mate, wrong puppet, thats Statler and Waldorf heckling because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Most games provide tutorials. If they are still struggling, "pointers and advice" for games have never been more plentiful. This is not 1986. We have Google now. You can't throw a rock into the Google search function without hitting a lake of advice, for any game. Google "[insert name of game] tips" and bam, pointers and advice out the kazoo. I do it all the time. If it's a team mate, yeah, I'll try to help him/her directly if I can. Otherwise, if they can't figure out the basic functions of a game on the easiest mode available, I think it's a fair assumption to make that they probably haven't tried very hard at all.

But maybe I have too much faith in people. You seem to think they are incapable. Difference of opinion, I guess.

Knowing the mechanics is one thing, being able to put them into practice is another. I can read "You need to do this and this then this" but if or more of those steps is giving me trouble then I'm going to need an easier setting so I can get the hang of it. Maybe I'll even ratchet difficulties back up once I've managed. Banging my head against a wall trying the same thing over and over isn't going to help

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Oh and trying insist this is all just "in my mind" is kind of futile given I already went and scoured for some quotes where you do exactly what I'm accusing you of. Want me to find more?

And again, difference of opinion. What you see as evil, mean, elitism with the sole intent of making myself feel good, I see as simply motivational speech. So your quotes don't mean anything, because we interpret them entirely differently.

If you think hurling insults at random people is encouragement then I advise you to never become a motivational speaker

Kerg3927:
I think before getting out the pitchforks and looking for someone ELSE to blame for their struggles, before demanding that a game change for them, people should first look at themselves, and ask what they can do better. Is that too much to ask?

Analogy time again. I see a frustrated caterpillar crawling around, and I tell him, dude, just spin a chrysalis, and you can turn into a butterfly! You see the frustrated caterpillar, and tell him, no it's perfectly okay to just give up and spend the rest of your life crawling around as larva, while blaming everyone else for the fact that you can't fly.

Except the caterpillar can't just go ahead and spin a chrysalis. There are so many things they need to have set up beforehand. Do you think caterpillars spend all their time eating because they're just fat and lazy? They kind of need the fuel for that whole "body literally melting and reforming" thing they're going to go through. Seriously this is a shitty analogy even by your standards. But put in these terms, you are a butterfly looking down at a caterpillar that hasn't changed yet and saying "Well why don't you just spread your wings? Lazy scrub" which isn't going to accomplish anything and just shows how poorly you're thinking about anyone but yourself

CritialGaming:
And here is the problem with your problem with his analogy. Competitive sports has a skill REQUIREMENT. Even if this "new" player is underperforming because the team doesn't know his skill level, it doesn't mean that this underperforming player isn't required to step up play to be on competitive equality with the rest of the team. That's how sports GAMES work. That's how games work period. A game is designed that it requires a certain level of skill to win, and the weakest person on the team usually doesn't get to be on the team long.

And this analogy falls apart because playing a video game is not like playing competitive sports. Playing a video game is like having a kickabout with your mates in the park. In which, unless you're a real dick to your friends, you're not going to assign requirements on who can play

CritialGaming:
That's what I think you keep floating over. Many of these games have "easy" modes in them already. Cuphead has a simple mode, Dark Souls and Bloodborne have Co-Op (plus different build styles that make the game much easier), yet you say that these may not meet everyone's difficulty needs? Which the entire point of this thread is you CAN'T meet everyone's needs or wants for a game. If a person cannot beat the game on the easiest available setting what is the solution? A Walkthrough mode? A mode where you can just walk to the end of the game and the challenges just solve themselves in front of you?

I don't keep floating over it, I keep asking "But why though? Why not have another tier of easy mode? Why does being hard or "hardcore" automatically mean better?"
Also, you bitch about Walkthrough Mode but then...

CritialGaming:
I guess the easiest possible answer is put a "god" mode in every game. That way a player who finds the game too difficult can breeze through it. I would actually be fine with this, because they at least have to play the game. Think about this, say Dark Souls had a god mode where you were completely invulnerable to damage, you could play through the game at virtually no risk save for falling of the map (or getting knocked off by an enemy). A player in this situation could play through, learn how to control their character, dodge attacks, learn boss patterns, and might turn off the god mode to play the game for real. That would be totally fine.

...basically suggest a walkthrough mode and that you would be fine with it. Sounds pretty fun too. You telling me you've never switched a game down a few levels to enjoy the cathartic thrill of breezing through challenges like a boss?

CritialGaming:
But at the end of the day games do not NEED easier modes, or outright cheats. If the developers put them there, great, have at it. Just don't insist and demand that an easy mode or cheats get put into a game that the developers opted not to include. They have every right to make their game for whatever audience they want, just like you have the right to not play or support those games.

I've brought this up already, but when you play Monopoly do fines taken from players go into the bank or into Free Parking as a reward for the next player to land on it? You're aware that second one isn't in the official rules, right? Its a house rule that became popular because it adds the possibility of a player in need getting a windfall. Essentially its people deciding Monopoly was too punishing and needed an easy mode, because humanity has been doing that since before video games were even a thing. Are you going to insist people who use that rule should just not play or support Monopoly (admittedly no-one should play Monopoly, its a lousy game) if they're not going to play it the way it was designed? What do you think of newer versions of Monopoly which use electric banking, do you think making the game easier like that is just pandering?

Pallindromemordnillap:
I've brought this up already, but when you play Monopoly do fines taken from players go into the bank or into Free Parking as a reward for the next player to land on it? You're aware that second one isn't in the official rules, right? Its a house rule that became popular because it adds the possibility of a player in need getting a windfall. Essentially its people deciding Monopoly was too punishing and needed an easy mode, because humanity has been doing that since before video games were even a thing. Are you going to insist people who use that rule should just not play or support Monopoly?

Actually that's a terrible house rule that makes the game drag on too long. Once all the property has been bought up and traded into color groups the interesting part of the game is essentially over. At this point, a losing player who gets a free parking jackpot is still going to lose, they will just take longer.

There are good house rules, but it is okay to warn people about really terrible ones. Monopoly isn't that bad if you play by the actual rules.

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

If you had been paying attention to anything I said, you would already be aware that i have no problem with cheats and easy modes. My problem is people saying that every game should have an easy mode or cheats.

Again not every game can be for everybody. Not every game can or will be easy enough for everyone to play and/or complete.

What you are asking for is impossible, hard games are allowed to be hard and if the developer decided to not include anything but the basically difficulty setting then that is perfectly fine. If you can't play that game, go play something else. Video Games are not so important that excluded some people is the end of the world.

[Quote]And this analogy falls apart because playing a video game is not like playing competitive sports. Playing a video game is like having a kickabout with your mates in the park. In which, unless you're a real dick to your friends, you're not going to assign requirements on who can play[/quote]

Does it fall apart? Because real life sports and video games are both games. They both ask of you a certain skill set right? One might be more physical than the other, but they are both games. Getting to a professional level of sports and video games can both earn a person a living if they are lucky enough to make it.

And it isn't like having a kickabout in the park. Yes in a casual scenario sure a kickabout requires nothing from a person, and there is no failure state in that situation. But a video game isn't like that. It throws an problem at you that you MUST solve, if you fail the game is over or you take damage. Continue to fail and you the game will send you back to the beginning. Regardless of how simple the challenge is before you, you must defeat that challenge or you lose, there are no inbetweens in a video game program because it is just a bunch of 1's and 0's and it wont understand that you are "really really" trying. It knows you succeeded or you failed, and that's it.

Your argument that some people need and even easier mode than easy really can't be helped. No developer can prepare for every possible player and they have to set their game up with a certain expected learning curve and skill set requirement. If a player doesn't have those capabilities, they can develop a bunch of different levels of "easy" in order to try and accommodate every possible player. Can you understand that? Do you see what I am ultimately saying?

Easy modes and cheats are fine, IF they are included. But if not, then deal with the game as it is.

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

If you had been paying attention to anything I said, you would already be aware that i have no problem with cheats and easy modes. My problem is people saying that every game should have an easy mode or cheats.

Again not every game can be for everybody. Not every game can or will be easy enough for everyone to play and/or complete.

What you are asking for is impossible, hard games are allowed to be hard and if the developer decided to not include anything but the basically difficulty setting then that is perfectly fine. If you can't play that game, go play something else. Video Games are not so important that excluded some people is the end of the world.

No, I get your argument dude. But I think you've missed mine, which is "Why?"
Why do you think not every game should be for everyone? Why is it impossible? Why are people who want an easy mode being included somehow troubling to you?
Its why I keep bringing up different games when making points to you; because your argument seems to be "because Dark Souls" and I'm hoping that using games that aren't some kind of sacred cow to you makes you see how ridiculous and unevenly applied your reasoning is

CritialGaming:

Pallindromemordnillap:
And this analogy falls apart because playing a video game is not like playing competitive sports. Playing a video game is like having a kickabout with your mates in the park. In which, unless you're a real dick to your friends, you're not going to assign requirements on who can play

Does it fall apart? Because real life sports and video games are both games. They both ask of you a certain skill set right? One might be more physical than the other, but they are both games. Getting to a professional level of sports and video games can both earn a person a living if they are lucky enough to make it.

Why on earth are you suddenly talking about being professional? When did earning a living come into this? We're talking about people playing a game here, not taking up a career. Hence my comparison of video games to a kickabout in the park rather than Premier League

CritialGaming:
And it isn't like having a kickabout in the park. Yes in a casual scenario sure a kickabout requires nothing from a person, and there is no failure state in that situation. But a video game isn't like that. It throws an problem at you that you MUST solve, if you fail the game is over or you take damage. Continue to fail and you the game will send you back to the beginning. Regardless of how simple the challenge is before you, you must defeat that challenge or you lose, there are no inbetweens in a video game program because it is just a bunch of 1's and 0's and it wont understand that you are "really really" trying. It knows you succeeded or you failed, and that's it.

And in the friendly kickabout you might trip and fall and actually really hurt your real life self. Or you might just miss a kick and embarrass yourself in front of your friends. Or whatever team your on might lose. Which, frankly, seem like much greater consequences than "Oh no I've been sent back to the last checkpoint". Between this and your last point you seem determined to set up video games as some sort of titanic struggle of life and death...but they're video games dude. They're entertainment. Made to be be played.

CritialGaming:
Your argument that some people need and even easier mode than easy really can't be helped. No developer can prepare for every possible player and they have to set their game up with a certain expected learning curve and skill set requirement. If a player doesn't have those capabilities, they can develop a bunch of different levels of "easy" in order to try and accommodate every possible player. Can you understand that? Do you see what I am ultimately saying?

Easy modes and cheats are fine, IF they are included. But if not, then deal with the game as it is.

This just brings me back to what I said up top: "Why?"
Why shouldn't they come with Training Wheels Modes? You still get a learning curve, its just they start from a different place. Why do you think a game that sells itself on being "hardcore" is superior? Like I said, your objection seems to be "Don't change my Dark Souls!" but why not? What does adding in a mode you won't use alter for you?

Pallindromemordnillap:

CritialGaming:
... not every game can be for everybody.

Why do you think not every game should be for everyone? Why is it impossible?

Again, you are sneakily and subtly changing what someone is saying and then arguing against it. Strawman. You insert the word "should" in there (in the place of "can"), and it changes the entire meaning of what he is arguing.

He's not saying that "not every game should be for everyone." He's not arguing for exclusion. That's your invention so you can create a bad guy to rail against. He said, "Not every game can be for everyone." Very different.

And to answer your question, "Why is it impossible [for developers to make every game for everyone]? Because they don't have to, and thus not all developers will.

It's totally okay if a developer wants to make a game focusing on a target audience, without giving two shits about the rest of the gamers out there. It's their right. We just want people to quit saying that it's somehow not their right, or that it's somehow bad or discriminatory, because that's nonsense.

There is something very broken and wrong about the mentality that results in people asking questions like, "Why not make everyone happy?" IMO it's a carefully disguised way of saying, "Everyone should make me happy." Which is selfish. And entitled. And that is what I'm talking about when I say "infected."

Pallindromemordnillap:

Why do you think not every game should be for everyone? Why is it impossible? Why are people who want an easy mode being included somehow troubling to you?

I want to address these questions separately, because they're very different.

The answer to the first-- about how "not every game should be for everyone"-- is that this would leave no room for certain forms. It is right that developers and creators should identify specific niches, not all of which are necessarily big or popular, because this will increase the diversity of available art. Catering only to the largest audiences promotes homogeneity and generic forms; catering to as many different audiences with different, diverse, sometimes smaller pieces, leads to the opposite. Diversity of available art is better, for the consumer and for artistic quality overall.

However, this isn't a reason to be against difficulty options. Difficulty options themselves offer more ways of playing the game, without affecting others. I'm all for them.

Silvanus:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Why do you think not every game should be for everyone? Why is it impossible? Why are people who want an easy mode being included somehow troubling to you?

I want to address these questions separately, because they're very different.

The answer to the first-- about how "not every game should be for everyone"-- is that this would leave no room for certain forms. It is right that developers and creators should identify specific niches, not all of which are necessarily big or popular, because this will increase the diversity of available art. Catering only to the largest audiences promotes homogeneity and generic forms; catering to as many different audiences with different, diverse, sometimes smaller pieces, leads to the opposite. Diversity of available art is better, for the consumer and for artistic quality overall.

However, this isn't a reason to be against difficulty options. Difficulty options themselves offer more ways of playing the game, without affecting others. I'm all for them.

It is my opinion that when a game focuses on a specific audience, instead of trying to please everyone, that specific audience usually ends up with a better game. Which is why I vehemently defend a developer's right to do so.

I know people get tired of the Souls games being brought up. But they really are the perfect example of a developer making the game they want to make for the gamers they know will like it. They didn't listen to the crybabies, and it was a huge success for them. So they shouldn't start listening to them now. I wish more developers would follow FromSoftware's lead.

And I'm not just talking about difficult games. That goes for all types of games. Quit trying to appeal to everyone. Someone is always going to whine. Let them whine. Just focus on making the best game you can possibly make for a given game's core audience.

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:

CritialGaming:
... not every game can be for everybody.

Why do you think not every game should be for everyone? Why is it impossible?

Again, you are sneakily and subtly changing what someone is saying and then arguing against it. Strawman. You insert the word "should" in there (in the place of "can"), and it changes the entire meaning of what he is arguing.

He's not saying that "not every game should be for everyone." He's not arguing for exclusion. That's your invention so you can create a bad guy to rail against. He said, "Not every game can be for everyone." Very different.

And to answer your question, "Why is it impossible [for developers to make every game for everyone]? Because they don't have to, and thus not all developers will.

It's totally okay if a developer wants to make a game focusing on a target audience, without giving two shits about the rest of the gamers out there. It's their right. We just want people to quit saying that it's somehow not their right, or that it's somehow bad or discriminatory, because that's nonsense.

There is something very broken and wrong about the mentality that results in people asking questions like, "Why not make everyone happy?" IMO it's a carefully disguised way of saying, "Everyone should make me happy." Which is selfish. And entitled. And that is what I'm talking about when I say "infected."

How does it change the meaning? Either way its "These games not for these people". Which I think you know because you've quite noticeably not actually explained what you think the difference is, just insisted I'm making up strawmen. Nice try at being clever but its a swing and a miss I'm afraid.

Do not have to =/= impossible. If we're going talk "Actually cannot physically make every game for everyone" then sure there's going to issues. Can't make Dance Dance Revolution for quadriplegics. Can't make Dante's Inferno for a hardline Christian. Anyone blind is going to have heaps of trouble with pretty much everything. But we're talking difficulty levels. And saying "eh, I don't want to" doesn't render something a Sisyphean task.

It genuinely concerns me that you see an attitude that you yourself describe as "Why not make everyone happy" and write it off as "selfish and entitled" Like, wow dude. I thought you were just an arse before but thats some psychopath level shit right there. What is it about empathy that makes you perceive selfish motives behind it? Have you considered that might just be projection?

Pallindromemordnillap:
How does it change the meaning? Either way its "These games not for these people". Which I think you know because you've quite noticeably not actually explained what you think the difference is, just insisted I'm making up strawmen. Nice try at being clever but its a swing and a miss I'm afraid.

"... not every game can be for everybody" means it is not realistic to expect that every game be for everyone. I would go further and say that it's absolutely ridiculous to have that expectation, for any game.

"... not every game should be for everyone" means some games should exclude some people. It creates a strawman bad guy for you to attack, someone you can accuse of being elitist and exclusionary. But that's not what he said.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Do not have to =/= impossible. If we're going talk "Actually cannot physically make every game for everyone" then sure there's going to issues. Can't make Dance Dance Revolution for quadriplegics. Can't make Dante's Inferno for a hardline Christian. Anyone blind is going to have heaps of trouble with pretty much everything. But we're talking difficulty levels. And saying "eh, I don't want to" doesn't render something a Sisyphean task.

So should a company feel obligated to provide anything a consumer demands just because it's possible? I say not just no, but hell no. You seem to think the answer is yes. I say that's nonsense.

Pallindromemordnillap:
It genuinely concerns me that you see an attitude that you yourself describe as "Why not make everyone happy" and write it off as "selfish and entitled" Like, wow dude. I thought you were just an arse before but thats some psychopath level shit right there. What is it about empathy that makes you perceive selfish motives behind it? Have you considered that might just be projection?

I'm a "psychopath" because I believe that it's selfish and entitled for someone to ask why others don't provide him and everyone else with anything they want or desire? Like, wow dude right back at you.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Do not have to =/= impossible. If we're going talk "Actually cannot physically make every game for everyone" then sure there's going to issues. Can't make Dance Dance Revolution for quadriplegics. Can't make Dante's Inferno for a hardline Christian. Anyone blind is going to have heaps of trouble with pretty much everything. But we're talking difficulty levels. And saying "eh, I don't want to" doesn't render something a Sisyphean task.

Why can't a quadriplegic play Dance Dance? Why couldn't they make a controller controlled using different types of breaths? After all wheel chairs can be controlled by breath, so surely it shouldn't be hard to make a breath controller for Dance Dance.

By the same token, why couldn't there be a Christianity mode for Dante's Inferno to make it playable by Christian's? It should be just as simple as asking for an extra easy mode right? After all it's only a different mode.

I dunno why it should be so easy to add an easy mode when it would be too difficult or expensive to add new senored modes for something like Dante's or make a new controller for Dance Dance.

Kerg3927:
"... not every game can be for everybody" means it is not realistic to expect that every game be for everyone. I would go further and say that it's absolutely ridiculous to have that expectation, for any game.

"... not every game should be for everyone" means some games should exclude some people. It creates a strawman bad guy for you to attack, someone you can accuse of being elitist and exclusionary. But that's not what he said.

No, either way its still "These games not for these people" like I already said. You're still trying to take something away from other people. The only difference is "can be" suggests reasons other than difficulty modes, which is a blatant attempt at shifting goalposts.

Kerg3927:
So should a company feel obligated to provide anything a consumer demands just because it's possible? I say not just no, but hell no. You seem to think the answer is yes. I say that's nonsense.

And yet I can't help but feel that if the next Dark Souls game came out looking like Superhot you'd complain. But why should you have those high end graphics? The developers have decided to take an option that consumes less time and budget and you should suck it up right?

Kerg3927:
I'm a "psychopath" because I believe that it's selfish and entitled for someone to ask why others don't provide him and everyone else with anything they want or desire? Like, wow dude right back at you

Are...are you really trying to use "I know you are but what am I?" as a serious argument? Really? Firstly it makes it obvious you have no idea what actually makes a psychopath a psychopath and are just hurling out insults hoping that something sticks. Secondly, you literally said in your own words that you when you see someone doing something for others you assume its really for selfish reasons. Now either thats projecting, since I've already pointed out your attempts at being Kindly Benefactor are just efforts to mask your narcissism so you're seeing that same effort in others, or you actually have trouble dealing with empathy which is exactly what makes a psychopath a psychopath

CritialGaming:
Why can't a quadriplegic play Dance Dance? Why couldn't they make a controller controlled using different types of breaths? After all wheel chairs can be controlled by breath, so surely it shouldn't be hard to make a breath controller for Dance Dance.

By the same token, why couldn't there be a Christianity mode for Dante's Inferno to make it playable by Christian's? It should be just as simple as asking for an extra easy mode right? After all it's only a different mode.

I dunno why it should be so easy to add an easy mode when it would be too difficult or expensive to add new senored modes for something like Dante's or make a new controller for Dance Dance.

1.) They absolutely should make a controller controlled by breath. But who is the they in this question? Because thats the sort of hardware issue I'd expect to see from a massive company with the cash and time to throw at it. They've given us motion controls and VR headsets, why can't they give us controllers for the disabled? Konami absolutely has the ability to put some effort into making a breath controller for Dance Dance Revolution, get on it Konami. Difficulty levels on the other hand would be done by the smaller publisher that made the game. And thats just a coding issue. I do not expect Bandai Namco to be able to master new forms of technology, I do expect them to know how to code

2.) While its fun imagining what exactly Christian Mode would be for Dante's Inferno (and whether that might actually have resulted in a better game), this issue would still be that there will be Christians who feel their beliefs are being trivialised by sticking them in a game. The problem is that game is using Christianity at all, not how "shocking" it thinks its being with Christianity. These people would not be asking for a cleaned up version of the game where all the topless women are given a bra and sensible sweater, they'd be asking the game does not exist at all. So again, its not an issue of "I am finding this a bit tricky, can I get it a bit easier so I get the hang of it". Sorry, but I thought these examples through before I used them because I kind of saw it coming that one of you two would try to twist them around ;)

Pallindromemordnillap:
No, either way its still "These games not for these people" like I already said. You're still trying to take something away from other people. The only difference is "can be" suggests reasons other than difficulty modes, which is a blatant attempt at shifting goalposts.

It's impossible to have a logical argument with someone whose basic assumptions about how the world works are ass backward.

I operate under the assumption that everyone starts with nothing, and is only entitled to what they can barter for or negotiate, or are lucky enough to inherit. You seem to operate under the assumption that everyone is entitled to everything they want, and if they don't have something they want, then it's because some elitist assholes who lack empathy took it from them. But that's not the way the observable universe works.

You can't take something away from someone who never had it to begin with.

Pallindromemordnillap:
And yet I can't help but feel that if the next Dark Souls game came out looking like Superhot you'd complain. But why should you have those high end graphics? The developers have decided to take an option that consumes less time and budget and you should suck it up right?

Yes, I would have to. Just like, as a PC gamer, I have had to accept the fact that Bloodborne is PS4-exclusive, and I can't play it unless I want to spend $300 on a console that I probably wouldn't use for anything else. FromSoftware's next Souls-like game may very well be console-exclusive, too, and if so, I'll be really bummed, but I'm not going to say that something was taken from me, because I never had it to begin with, and the company is under no obligation to provide me with a PC version.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Are...are you really trying to use "I know you are but what am I?" as a serious argument? Really? Firstly it makes it obvious you have no idea what actually makes a psychopath a psychopath and are just hurling out insults hoping that something sticks. Secondly, you literally said in your own words that you when you see someone doing something for others you assume its really for selfish reasons. Now either thats projecting, since I've already pointed out your attempts at being Kindly Benefactor are just efforts to mask your narcissism so you're seeing that same effort in others, or you actually have trouble dealing with empathy which is exactly what makes a psychopath a psychopath

This point is inarguable until you can get past the backwardness of your basic assumptions, which probably won't happen. Although I love that you call me a psychopath, and then proceed to accuse me of hurling insults just because I responded with "wow dude." That's rich.

Kerg3927:
It's impossible to have a logical argument with someone whose basic assumptions about how the world works are ass backward.

I operate under the assumption that everyone starts with nothing, and is only entitled to what they can barter for or negotiate, or are lucky enough to inherit. You seem to operate under the assumption that everyone is entitled to everything they want, and if they don't have something they want, then it's because some elitist assholes who lack empathy took it from them. But that's not the way the observable universe works.

You can't take something away from someone who never had it to begin with.

I am saying "Hey, these people should be allowed to play this thing." You are saying "No these people should not be allowed to play this thing." Therefore you are trying to prevent people having a thing. There is no backwards logic here dude, its what you're asking for.

Though speaking of backwards logic, whats this assumption that they don't have it to begin with? The only requirement to getting Dark Souls is money, not difficulty levels. They [/i]have[/i] the game, now they'd like to play it. This isn't lazy whiny people asking for a machine that'll magic up food out of nowhere for them, its people asking that this toaster they bought doesn't automatically burn their fingers off every time they try to use it. And then you leaping in going "What, you think you're just entitled to toast from this toaster you bought? Why don't you try just not burning your fingers, scrub"

Kerg3927:
Yes, I would have to. Just like, as a PC gamer, I have had to accept the fact that Bloodborne is PS4-exclusive, and I can't play it unless I want to spend $300 on a console that I probably wouldn't use for anything else. FromSoftware's next Souls-like game may very well be console-exclusive, too, and if so, I'll be really bummed, but I'm not going to say that something was taken from me, because I never had it to begin with, and the company is under no obligation to provide me with a PC version.

Okay so now imagine you did manage to get a console version of Bloodbourne, you buy it, install it, get all happy...and it doesn't work. Something about it just doesn't work on your computer. Are you entitled for wanting a version of it that actually lets you play it? Are you supposed to just shrug and go "Well it never worked so I never actually had it, guess I can't complain"?

Kerg3927:
This point is inarguable until you can get past the backwardness of your basic assumptions, which probably won't happen. Although I love that you call me a psychopath, and then proceed to accuse me of hurling insults just because I responded with "wow dude." That's rich.

There is no backwards logic, merely you trying desperately to reach for arguments which don't make you look like an elitist. Not working well for you so far.

I assumed that your "right back at you" comment was calling me a psychopath, because you didn't think I was seeing your point of view or something. Lets face it, hurling insults around is hardly outside your wheelhouse. How long's it been since you described someone as whiny for not playing on hard?

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
It's impossible to have a logical argument with someone whose basic assumptions about how the world works are ass backward.

I operate under the assumption that everyone starts with nothing, and is only entitled to what they can barter for or negotiate, or are lucky enough to inherit. You seem to operate under the assumption that everyone is entitled to everything they want, and if they don't have something they want, then it's because some elitist assholes who lack empathy took it from them. But that's not the way the observable universe works.

You can't take something away from someone who never had it to begin with.

I am saying "Hey, these people should be allowed to play this thing." You are saying "No these people should not be allowed to play this thing." Therefore you are trying to prevent people having a thing. There is no backwards logic here dude, its what you're asking for.

Though speaking of backwards logic, whats this assumption that they don't have it to begin with? The only requirement to getting Dark Souls is money, not difficulty levels. They [/i]have[/i] the game, now they'd like to play it. This isn't lazy whiny people asking for a machine that'll magic up food out of nowhere for them, its people asking that this toaster they bought doesn't automatically burn their fingers off every time they try to use it. And then you leaping in going "What, you think you're just entitled to toast from this toaster you bought? Why don't you try just not burning your fingers, scrub"

Kerg3927:
Yes, I would have to. Just like, as a PC gamer, I have had to accept the fact that Bloodborne is PS4-exclusive, and I can't play it unless I want to spend $300 on a console that I probably wouldn't use for anything else. FromSoftware's next Souls-like game may very well be console-exclusive, too, and if so, I'll be really bummed, but I'm not going to say that something was taken from me, because I never had it to begin with, and the company is under no obligation to provide me with a PC version.

Okay so now imagine you did manage to get a console version of Bloodbourne, you buy it, install it, get all happy...and it doesn't work. Something about it just doesn't work on your computer. Are you entitled for wanting a version of it that actually lets you play it? Are you supposed to just shrug and go "Well it never worked so I never actually had it, guess I can't complain"?

Kerg3927:
This point is inarguable until you can get past the backwardness of your basic assumptions, which probably won't happen. Although I love that you call me a psychopath, and then proceed to accuse me of hurling insults just because I responded with "wow dude." That's rich.

There is no backwards logic, merely you trying desperately to reach for arguments which don't make you look like an elitist. Not working well for you so far.

I assumed that your "right back at you" comment was calling me a psychopath, because you didn't think I was seeing your point of view or something. Lets face it, hurling insults around is hardly outside your wheelhouse. How long's it been since you described someone as whiny for not playing on hard?

What stops anyone from playing a game they bought? You use an example of bloodborne being broken and that isnt the same thing as the game being hard. Of course everything should WORK. But just because the game is hard doesnt mean someone cant play the game as much as they want.

Tell me what stops anyone from playing a dark souls game? If they have the game and the system to run it, then what stops them from playing it?

Challenge?

Dark Souls has the motto "prepare to die" as a tagline. What is someone to expect? A tiptoe through the tullips?

Come on.

All anyone is asking for is to be reasonable. Games can only do what is coded into them, so using the "well i bought it i should be able to do whatever i want with it" is just not true. When you by a game you essentially buy a puzzle. And the developer gives you a set of tools and rules to follow in order to solve the puzzle. If you do it then great. But if you cant, it isnt on the puzzle maker to start solving it for you. You paid for the puzzle NOT the solution. (Solutions are extra 9.99 microtransactions).

Pallindromemordnillap:

?

Getting the impression you're trying to build an army of straw men now, literally taking logical, objective points and transforming them into ludicrous sympathy pleas.

Unbelievable this argument is still going. Perhaps try to accept that it's not a required goal of developers or any creator to make everyone happy. Imagine if all movies were rated G. See? Impossible and incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

What CritialGaming and hanselthecaretaker said.

Also...

There are probably some Youtube videos out there that would show you how to properly operate that toaster without burning your fingers. Maybe take 5 min. to watch one before complaining?

Or maybe you shouldn't have bought a toaster if it's something that's too difficult for you? People make poor consumer choices all the time. It happens. You learn from your mistake and move on.

If it's defective, I'm sure the retailer or the manufacturer will exchange it for a new one. But you'll still have to learn to operate it. They are not going to come to your house and do it for you.

Kerg3927:

It's impossible to have a logical argument with someone whose basic assumptions about how the world works are ass backward.

I operate under the assumption that everyone starts with nothing, and is only entitled to what they can barter for or negotiate, or are lucky enough to inherit. You seem to operate under the assumption that everyone is entitled to everything they want, and if they don't have something they want, then it's because some elitist assholes who lack empathy took it from them. But that's not the way the observable universe works.

Observations about how the world works elsewhere do not function as guidelines on how to act.

Whether that's how it works elsewhere in the world is utterly irrelevant to whether we should open a game to a wider audience or not.

You're extrapolating a value judgement from a factual statement, which is a nonsensical thing to do.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Are...are you really trying to use "I know you are but what am I?" as a serious argument? Really? Firstly it makes it obvious you have no idea what actually makes a psychopath a psychopath and are just hurling out insults hoping that something sticks.

Anybody with the faintest notion of what they were talking about wouldn't be calling other people "psychopaths" on the internet to begin with, lacking any diagnostic tools and all.

hanselthecaretaker:
Unbelievable this argument is still going.

I'm surprised too. My other threads are made with a little more effort and usually die off pretty quickly. Is it because people here really love Jim? I still don't agree with them.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
Unbelievable this argument is still going.

I'm surprised too. My other threads are made with a little more effort and usually die off pretty quickly. Is it because people here really love Jim? I still don't agree with them.

Jim has as many haters as he does fans. Myself, I at least think he's worth listening to and the point he tends to make is worth considering. Even if parts of his vids are full cringe.

hanselthecaretaker:
Getting the impression you?re trying to build an army of straw men now, literally taking logical, objective points and transforming them into ludicrous sympathy pleas.

Unbelievable this argument is still going. Perhaps try to accept that it?s not a required goal of developers or any creator to make everyone happy. Imagine if all movies were rated G. See? Impossible and incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Kerg is the one strawmanning hardcore from what his responses to me along with his horrible analogies. He even came up with an analogy that proves his own point to be wrong.

Firstly, there has been literally no proof that adding an easy mode to any game would make said game worse or take away precious resources as difficulty modes take so little time in the first place. Dark Souls already literally has difficulty modes due to NG+. You wanna make the argument how NG+ lowers the quality of first playthroughs of any Souls game by taking up precious time and resources? Because that is literally the exact argument by people saying keep easy difficulties out of "our" games.

Secondly, no one was demanding that every game have an easy mode, more of a "what if?" or "why not?". Then, of course, gamers stormed in saying it would ruin games like Dark Souls, which it wouldn't. There's already higher skill-based games out there than a Souls game that have very easy modes and it didn't ruin those games. If devs want to put an easy mode in, it ain't gonna ruin the game. If the devs don't, then they don't. That's pretty much it.

CritialGaming:
What stops anyone from playing a game they bought? You use an example of bloodborne being broken and that isnt the same thing as the game being hard. Of course everything should WORK. But just because the game is hard doesnt mean someone cant play the game as much as they want.

Tell me what stops anyone from playing a dark souls game? If they have the game and the system to run it, then what stops them from playing it?

Challenge?

Dark Souls has the motto "prepare to die" as a tagline. What is someone to expect? A tiptoe through the tullips?

Come on.

All anyone is asking for is to be reasonable. Games can only do what is coded into them, so using the "well i bought it i should be able to do whatever i want with it" is just not true. When you by a game you essentially buy a puzzle. And the developer gives you a set of tools and rules to follow in order to solve the puzzle. If you do it then great. But if you cant, it isnt on the puzzle maker to start solving it for you. You paid for the puzzle NOT the solution. (Solutions are extra 9.99 microtransactions).

Yes. Its the challenge that's stopped people. Thats what this whole discussion has been about for quite some time now. And while reducing that challenge might make things a cakewalk for you it clearly won't for the person who is having trouble on that difficulty. An easier level will still be a challenge for them.

hanselthecaretaker:
Getting the impression you?re trying to build an army of straw men now, literally taking logical, objective points and transforming them into ludicrous sympathy pleas.

Unbelievable this argument is still going. Perhaps try to accept that it?s not a required goal of developers or any creator to make everyone happy. Imagine if all movies were rated G. See? Impossible and incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive.

I fail to see anything logical or objective in Kerg's posts. His arguments are boiling down to either "Well I can do it so why can't they?" or even worse "Get out of my game noob" and I think you'll find they're both illogical and subjective as hell.
And that would be the reason this argument is still going. Because I have no problem with people who disagree with me, but a low tolerance for them behaving like an ass about it. CritialGaming doesn't want an easy mode in Dark Souls and insists on calling anyone who does entitled, Azure23 doesn't want an easy mode in Dark Souls but admits its solely their personal preference. Guess which one I've been responding to.

Kerg3927:
What CritialGaming and hanselthecaretaker said.

Also...

There are probably some Youtube videos out there that would show you how to properly operate that toaster without burning your fingers. Maybe take 5 min. to watch one before complaining?

Or maybe you shouldn't have bought a toaster if it's something that's too difficult for you? People make poor consumer choices all the time. It happens. You learn from your mistake and move on.

If it's defective, I'm sure the retailer or the manufacturer will exchange it for a new one. But you'll still have to learn to operate it. They are not going to come to your house and do it for you.

Okay, so you watch the video, try and out and for whatever reason still can't manage it. Now what? Going to keep going round the cycle of watching, trying, failing, or are you going to start asking for oven gloves or maybe see if there's an option that removes the finger-burning feature until you're good enough to deal with it?
Oh, and for the record hansel, this would be one of those arguments of Kerg's that boils down to "Well I can do it so why can't they?" Still thinking they're logical?

Silvanus:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Are...are you really trying to use "I know you are but what am I?" as a serious argument? Really? Firstly it makes it obvious you have no idea what actually makes a psychopath a psychopath and are just hurling out insults hoping that something sticks.

Anybody with the faintest notion of what they were talking about wouldn't be calling other people "psychopaths" on the internet to begin with, lacking any diagnostic tools and all.

I don't know, he said himself that he apparently can't see attempts at helping others for what they are, and instead sees selfish ulterior motives. That kind of attitude troubles me even without any qualification for making legitimate psychological diagnoses.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
Getting the impression you?re trying to build an army of straw men now, literally taking logical, objective points and transforming them into ludicrous sympathy pleas.

Unbelievable this argument is still going. Perhaps try to accept that it?s not a required goal of developers or any creator to make everyone happy. Imagine if all movies were rated G. See? Impossible and incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Kerg is the one strawmanning hardcore from what his responses to me along with his horrible analogies. He even came up with an analogy that proves his own point to be wrong.

Firstly, there has been literally no proof that adding an easy mode to any game would make said game worse or take away precious resources as difficulty modes take so little time in the first place. Dark Souls already literally has difficulty modes due to NG+. You wanna make the argument how NG+ lowers the quality of first playthroughs of any Souls game by taking up precious time and resources? Because that is literally the exact argument by people saying keep easy difficulties out of "our" games.

Secondly, no one was demanding that every game have an easy mode, more of a "what if?" or "why not?". Then, of course, gamers stormed in saying it would ruin games like Dark Souls, which it wouldn't. There's already higher skill-based games out there than a Souls game that have very easy modes and it didn't ruin those games. If devs want to put an easy mode in, it ain't gonna ruin the game. If the devs don't, then they don't. That's pretty much it.

So, why does it need more??? is all anyone's trying to say here. Face it, if Dark Souls was designed with a traditional "Easy" "Medium" "Hard" select before you start, it would lose design significance right off the bat. A large part of the appeal of it is using the game itself to create your own "Easy" "Medium" and "Hard". It's one homogeneous game experience that any player can make their own.

When someone beats Dark Souls, they beat Dark Souls. No one needs to ask what difficulty level they beat it at, because it's intrinsic to the very core design to be figured out by the player themselves as they play through the game. It's not even one of the most difficult games made anyways as you have said yourself, so adding a difficulty select to the menu would do nothing more than fracture the overall experience and cheapen its appeal.

Phoenixmgs:
Firstly, there has been literally no proof that adding an easy mode to any game would make said game worse or take away precious resources as difficulty modes take so little time in the first place. Dark Souls already literally has difficulty modes due to NG+. You wanna make the argument how NG+ lowers the quality of first playthroughs of any Souls game by taking up precious time and resources? Because that is literally the exact argument by people saying keep easy difficulties out of "our" games.

The existence of difficulty modes does not prove they require little or no resources. Harder modes add considerable value to a game like Dark Souls, so From Software will be willing to invest in them.

Azure23:
I'm not opposed to difficulty settings in games, they tend to add replay value and to date one of my most intense gaming experiences ever was playing through Halo on legendary when I was 11.

That said I don't want them in soulsborne games. For a couple of reasons, I think that Miyazaki and his team do a pretty good job of creating organic difficulty selectors in game mechanics. Pretty much any boss is a cakewalk if you pump vitality and summon two phantoms to help you gank it. Magic is safe and powerful, and you can use the various types to exploit elemental weaknesses and do even more damage from a safe distance. Dark Souls 2 had the covenant of champions, which I loved. If you joined it, it basically set enemies and encounters to ng+ mode right away, spawning in the extra red phantom versions of enemies. It also rewarded you for progressing in this mode with a ring that made your bare fists some of the strongest weapons in the game, which was fun and awesome.

The other reason, and the one much more important to me, is twinks. In the souls games, a twink refers to a very low level character that someone has used to progress through the game to acquire late game gear, weapons, magic, or a higher number of healing charges. A min maxed twink build will beat out the vast majority of low level players in damage, defense, and access to healing. Still though, it's very difficult to beat some late game bosses with a low health pool and un-upgraded weapons, so you don't see it too often.

Basically i'm selfish and I did the hard thing so I could stomp all over bad gankers and I don't want those same gankers to be able to get back at me.

^^^Also, this. While I realize some game genres are still best served by a normal difficulty select, it's simply not always the case with others, and they shouldn't need to be pigeon-holed into them. There are some cases where it's still the most viable solution, as in more linear-based arcade-like design where there isn't as much room for experimentation. However, I still think it would be best if more of these games had systems within them to do difficulty more organically as well, but maybe the viability of that will always be dependent on the depth of the game's design.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 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