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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 15 NEXT
 

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.

You're ridiculous. Meiam (post 135) and I already explained that it's impossible to prove something like that, to give an example, but you don't care.

Pallindromemordnillap:

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?

Only if resorting to a finger-burning toaster analogy to support an argument for including an easy mode was considered logical in the first place.

Who would continuously burn their fingers on a toaster unless they're A. incredibly stupid or B. it's extremely defective anyways?
I also don't know of anyone (even those who play all their games on "Easy") who's needed a 5 minute video explaining how to operate one.

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

More options is only better regardless if you would even use those options yourself because someone else might. What if someone wants to play a Souls game in the "fun" manner who isn't very good at that playstyle instead of being cheap with arrows or magic? Who asks someone what difficulty they played such and such game at? How is the your experience going to be cheapened when you played it on the "normal" difficulty anyway getting the exact same experience as any other Souls game? Lastly, if the appeal of a Souls game is the difficulty, then it's being played for the wrong reason to begin with.

Bad Jim:

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.

That was not what I was trying to prove. Just knowing the basics of game development, you already will know how easy it is to implement multiple difficulty modes. What I was "proving" was for those that believe difficulty modes take considerably enough time and resources to at least noticeably affect the quality of the final game, then the NG+ in the Souls games are already causing every Souls game to be worse on the initial playthrough.

Ezekiel:

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.

You're ridiculous. Meiam (post 135) and I already explained that it's impossible to prove something like that, to give an example, but you don't care.

You both don't understand how game development and play-testing work and think difficulty modes take significant enough time and resources to have a negative effect on the final game, which is far from the truth. Devs make toolkits to be able to change just about anything on the fly. Implementing a difficulty level where enemies have 10% less health and do 10% less damage or vice verse takes seconds. Creating the GUI menu for different difficulty levels takes more time. It's like how sports games have a slew of gameplay sliders to tweak everything, those sliders were developed firstly for the devs and merely made available to the players. Or the command console in Bethesda games. These tools already exist and making them available to players just takes making a few more menu interfaces.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

More options is only better regardless if you would even use those options yourself because someone else might. What if someone wants to play a Souls game in the "fun" manner who isn't very good at that playstyle instead of being cheap with arrows or magic? Who asks someone what difficulty they played such and such game at? How is the your experience going to be cheapened when you played it on the "normal" difficulty anyway getting the exact same experience as any other Souls game? Lastly, if the appeal of a Souls game is the difficulty, then it's being played for the wrong reason to begin with.

There's nothing stopping them from learning the game as it is. And if you say, "But the difficulty does", well then right there is your answer as to how the game is cheapened by compromising its design to cater to those with less skill or dedication.

If that's considered offensive - a bloody game design choice - then I'd sure as hell hate to see how people deal with real life issues.

hanselthecaretaker:
There's nothing stopping them from learning the game as it is. And if you say, "But the difficulty does", well then right there is your answer as to how the game is cheapened by compromising its design to cater to those with less skill or dedication.

If that's considered offensive - a bloody game design choice - then holy hell I'd hate to see how people deal with real life issues.

The hand-eye coordination and reaction time vary from person-to-person. No one difficulty will ever yield the "proper" experience across all players. It doesn't matter if we are talking easier or harder modes. I'd want a hard difficulty in a Souls game because going from faster-paced games to a Souls game makes them pretty easy for me. Aren't I not getting the intended experience then? Isn't that comprising the game's design as well?

Nobody is saying every game MUST have an easy difficulty but there sure are people saying it would ruin games. Is Bayonetta any less of a game or compromising its design because there's a very easy mode that does wicked weave attacks on just single button presses? Hell no.

Phoenixmgs:
You both don't understand how game development and play-testing work and think difficulty modes take significant enough time and resources to have a negative effect on the final game, which is far from the truth. Devs make toolkits to be able to change just about anything on the fly. Implementing a difficulty level where enemies have 10% less health and do 10% less damage or vice verse takes seconds.

Adjusting a global damage modifier takes seconds, but what effect does it have? You just don't know, until you get a group of low-skill playtesters to spend 10-20 hours each playing through the game. Chances are that the damage reduction removes all challenge from some parts of the game while having no effect on other parts. Then you have to make further modifications and do more testing.

Bad Jim:
Adjusting a global damage modifier takes seconds, but what effect does it have? You just don't know, until you get a group of low-skill playtesters to spend 10-20 hours each playing through the game. Chances are that the damage reduction removes all challenge from some parts of the game while having no effect on other parts. Then you have to make further modifications and do more testing.

Again, people here don't get how little playtesting goes into a game, these are video games, not board games (that are rigorously playtested even then not always). Why don't you read about how unbalanced high level starship combat in Paizo's newly released tabletop RPG Starfinder is? They didn't playtest it and just assumed their math was correct and this from Paizo, the biggest or second biggest company in tabletop RPGs. Video games are barely playtested even in games where balance is paramount like multiplayer games. The more difficulty options in single player games the better the chance out of sheer luck that the game will have a semblance of balance.

How is 10% less health going to completely remove challenge from the game? The only time it could actually majorly change an enemy encounter is an enemy that's supposed to one-hit kill the player. Losing the one-hit kill could be a good thing for easy mode anyway. Plus, if the dev does indeed want that attack to always be a one-hit kill, they'll set the damage of the attack to be so high that a 10% reduction is still going to easily kill the player in one-shot anyway. Lastly, the whole point of an easy or hard mode is that the game is unbalanced in favor or against the player.

hanselthecaretaker:
Only if resorting to a finger-burning toaster analogy to support an argument for including an easy mode was considered logical in the first place.

Who would continuously burn their fingers on a toaster unless they're A. incredibly stupid or B. it's extremely defective anyways?
I also don't know of anyone (even those who play all their games on "Easy") who's needed a 5 minute video explaining how to operate one.

See, that would be what we call an "analogy". It makes use of something you might have heard of called "metaphor" to explain a point using stand ins for what is actually being talked about. You see, there is no actual toaster. Its really Dark Souls we're talking about. The burning would the "repeatedly dying" aspect of the game and its ilk. So by saying you think burning your fingers (which here, remember, is repeated deaths in the game) is a sign of defectiveness in the toaster (the stand in for Dark Souls) you are in fact saying you think that manner of trial and error game play is stupid. Which kind of undermines your point that an easy mode shouldn't be necessary, doesn't it? If people are just repeatedly dying and not getting anywhere is, to you, a sign the thing they are using is defective, then there should be changes made so they don't keep repeatedly dying. Like an easy mode. You're trying to call me out but all you're doing is agreeing with me whether you wanted to or not

Phoenixmgs:
Again, people here don't get how little playtesting goes into a game, these are video games, not board games (that are rigorously playtested even then not always). Why don't you read about how unbalanced high level starship combat in Paizo's newly released tabletop RPG Starfinder is? They didn't playtest it and just assumed their math was correct and this from Paizo, the biggest or second biggest company in tabletop RPGs. Video games are barely playtested even in games where balance is paramount like multiplayer games. The more difficulty options in single player games the better the chance out of sheer luck that the game will have a semblance of balance.

Or maybe it's just impossible to please everyone. Look at any game forum after any balance change and you will find a bunch of people complaining that the game has been ruined. Actually start playing said game and you will probably find yourself having fun.

Also, EA for example has eight playtest studios. Playtesting is a thing that happens.
https://na.playtesting.ea.com/ARCSPortal/EA/locations

Phoenixmgs:
How is 10% less health going to completely remove challenge from the game? The only time it could actually majorly change an enemy encounter is an enemy that's supposed to one-hit kill the player. Losing the one-hit kill could be a good thing for easy mode anyway. Plus, if the dev does indeed want that attack to always be a one-hit kill, they'll set the damage of the attack to be so high that a 10% reduction is still going to easily kill the player in one-shot anyway. Lastly, the whole point of an easy or hard mode is that the game is unbalanced in favor or against the player.

A 10% change won't completely remove challenge. What it will do is create a difficulty mode that not one player in a thousand can distinguish from normal difficulty without counting hits. To put it in perspective, in Skyrim, taking the difficulty down a notch from adept to apprentice means you do 50% more damage whilst also taking 25% less.

Use the kinds of modifiers that Skyrim does and you are likely to find many encounters where you no longer have to dodge or block or use cover but can simply stand there hitting enemies since they will die before you do.

Pallindromemordnillap:

hanselthecaretaker:
Only if resorting to a finger-burning toaster analogy to support an argument for including an easy mode was considered logical in the first place.

Who would continuously burn their fingers on a toaster unless they're A. incredibly stupid or B. it's extremely defective anyways?
I also don't know of anyone (even those who play all their games on "Easy") who's needed a 5 minute video explaining how to operate one.

See, that would be what we call an "analogy". It makes use of something you might have heard of called "metaphor" to explain a point using stand ins for what is actually being talked about. You see, there is no actual toaster. Its really Dark Souls we're talking about. The burning would the "repeatedly dying" aspect of the game and its ilk. So by saying you think burning your fingers (which here, remember, is repeated deaths in the game) is a sign of defectiveness in the toaster (the stand in for Dark Souls) you are in fact saying you think that manner of trial and error game play is stupid. Which kind of undermines your point that an easy mode shouldn't be necessary, doesn't it? If people are just repeatedly dying and not getting anywhere is, to you, a sign the thing they are using is defective, then there should be changes made so they don't keep repeatedly dying. Like an easy mode. You're trying to call me out but all you're doing is agreeing with me whether you wanted to or not

An easy mode would defeat the purpose of the game in this case, which is to learn from your mistakes. This is part of the "difficult, but fair" mantra of Souls games and is a big part of why they're highly regarded. Throw in an easy mode and you can just coast through the game, because who wants to bother with "learning" anything in a game, right? They then end up losing a big piece of their identity and significance by becoming like nearly anything else out there.

Bad Jim:
Or maybe it's just impossible to please everyone. Look at any game forum after any balance change and you will find a bunch of people complaining that the game has been ruined. Actually start playing said game and you will probably find yourself having fun.

Also, EA for example has eight playtest studios. Playtesting is a thing that happens.
https://na.playtesting.ea.com/ARCSPortal/EA/locations

A 10% change won't completely remove challenge. What it will do is create a difficulty mode that not one player in a thousand can distinguish from normal difficulty without counting hits. To put it in perspective, in Skyrim, taking the difficulty down a notch from adept to apprentice means you do 50% more damage whilst also taking 25% less.

Use the kinds of modifiers that Skyrim does and you are likely to find many encounters where you no longer have to dodge or block or use cover but can simply stand there hitting enemies since they will die before you do.

Most players don't understand how to properly balance a game, that's why. Lots of times there's a very valid counter to something the player just doesn't understand or doesn't want to do. You have to know how to play every playstyle to understand the ins and outs of balance. If someone sucks at sniping, they can't validly say snipers are overpowered or underpowered. Look what happened to BF3 when DICE actually listened to the community about balance and it went to shit. Plus, over 90% of players don't even understand how to really play shooters anyway, and you're going to listen to them? Just googling "cod domination", the 3rd hit is the following thread about how to play Domination, and the poster already failed at step 1 (you don't take your nearest flag at the start). Devs usually don't fully understand balance either because a lot of times they look at kill numbers to nerf guns, some guns are just more popular because they fit in well with the most popular playstyle.

Video game playtesting is almost always for finding bugs, not for balance testing. You really just need a couple really good players (on the dev team) that know the ins and outs of the mechanics to balance a game.

The 10% thing was just an example I threw out. Yeah, 10% is probably not enough of a change for most things to make a game much easier.

That's a problem with lots of RPGs where you can overlevel or make builds that basically break the game. That's part of the reason I say devs aren't good at balancing games even on the "normal" intended difficulty. Look at people playing Witcher 3 on Death March with "god" builds. Thus, why not have several difficulties just so the player can balance the game better for them whether it's making it easier or harder?

hanselthecaretaker:
An easy mode would defeat the purpose of the game in this case, which is to learn from your mistakes. This is part of the "difficult, but fair" mantra of Souls games and is a big part of why they're highly regarded. Throw in an easy mode and you can just coast through the game, because who wants to bother with "learning" anything in a game, right? They then end up losing a big piece of their identity and significance by becoming like nearly anything else out there.

No, throw in an easy mode and you would coast through the game. Someone finding the harder modes impossible will not. They will still have the same challenge and need to work through mistakes, just on a level where they can actually do those things

Pallindromemordnillap:

hanselthecaretaker:
An easy mode would defeat the purpose of the game in this case, which is to learn from your mistakes. This is part of the "difficult, but fair" mantra of Souls games and is a big part of why they're highly regarded. Throw in an easy mode and you can just coast through the game, because who wants to bother with "learning" anything in a game, right? They then end up losing a big piece of their identity and significance by becoming like nearly anything else out there.

No, throw in an easy mode and you would coast through the game. Someone finding the harder modes impossible will not. They will still have the same challenge and need to work through mistakes, just on a level where they can actually do those things

As others have mentioned here though, the Souls games already have a few different easy modes built into the core design. I've used at least a couple of them myself, but I guarantee I personally wouldn't have appreciated the games as much if they just let me pick "Easy" from a title screen menu. That's what some people aren't understanding here; a big chunk of the games' identity is in how it handles this, and so much of the discussions, debates and reverence would disappear if it did what most games do.

If something as innocent as a design choice made in a videogame offends people or hurts their feelings, well then they have a lot of growing up to do.

hanselthecaretaker:

Pallindromemordnillap:

hanselthecaretaker:
An easy mode would defeat the purpose of the game in this case, which is to learn from your mistakes. This is part of the "difficult, but fair" mantra of Souls games and is a big part of why they're highly regarded. Throw in an easy mode and you can just coast through the game, because who wants to bother with "learning" anything in a game, right? They then end up losing a big piece of their identity and significance by becoming like nearly anything else out there.

No, throw in an easy mode and you would coast through the game. Someone finding the harder modes impossible will not. They will still have the same challenge and need to work through mistakes, just on a level where they can actually do those things

As others have mentioned here though, the Souls games already have a few different easy modes built into the core design. I?ve used at least a couple of them myself, but I guarantee I personally wouldn?t have appreciated the games as much if they just let me pick ?Easy? from a title screen menu. That?s what some people aren?t understanding here; a big chunk of the games? identity is in how it handles this, and so much of the discussions, debates and reverence would disappear if it did what most games do.

If something as innocent as a design choice made in a videogame offends people or hurts their feelings, well then they have a lot of growing up to do.

Anyone who has played sports should understand what you are talking about. Coaches every day in all sports around the world challenge players to get better, and they have been doing so since sports were invented. The player at the time often thinks that what is being asked of him is too hard, and he may even resent the coach at the time and think he's an asshole. But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

What typically happens is the player gets better. He overcomes the challenge. He feels pride from that. And he is glad that he didn't quit, and typically thankful that the coach didn't lower the challenge when he was feeling self-doubt. Many players go on to love those same "asshole" coaches for the rest of their lives, because they were hard on them, because they challenged them, because they made them overcome those challenges and become a better person for it.

This is the same dynamic that is, IMO, at the core of the Souls game design. And the people who overcome those challenges end up loving FromSoftware for it. Then they go out and buy and play ALL of the Souls games. Because they want to keep getting that feeling of pride and accomplishment. It's like crack. Hell, it even causes some PC-exclusive gamers like me to think about buying a PS3 and PS4 just to play Demon's Souls and Bloodborne. Brand-loyalty. Brand-pride. Not a bad business model that can do that.

But some people think FromSoftware shouldn't be allowed to design games like that, because it's somehow bad. They think FromSoftware should should be shamed into changing their model. It's a ridiculous notion.

Kerg3927:
snip

Dark Souls 3 was a game that I recently couldn't touch. I couldn't figure out why, but the game just fucking brutallized me in every way. I quit playing the game for almost a year, until I decided to get a friend to help me out. So he and I co-oped the entire game including all the DLC's. It was awesome getting through all these difficult fights with fair ease as my friend was overpowered as fuck.

After we beat the game, I started a NG+ and said to myself "I've seen everything already, I know these fights and the traps, I am gonna see how far I can get." And I've been played for the past week for an hour or so here and there. I took breaks any time it got too frustrating.

But last night I defeated the Soul of Cinder. On my own. I beat the entire game. Myself. And fuck me, it felt great.

CritialGaming:

Kerg3927:
snip

Dark Souls 3 was a game that I recently couldn't touch. I couldn't figure out why, but the game just fucking brutallized me in every way. I quit playing the game for almost a year, until I decided to get a friend to help me out. So he and I co-oped the entire game including all the DLC's. It was awesome getting through all these difficult fights with fair ease as my friend was overpowered as fuck.

After we beat the game, I started a NG+ and said to myself "I've seen everything already, I know these fights and the traps, I am gonna see how far I can get." And I've been played for the past week for an hour or so here and there. I took breaks any time it got too frustrating.

But last night I defeated the Soul of Cinder. On my own. I beat the entire game. Myself. And fuck me, it felt great.

Fuck yeah! Way to go, dude.

Kerg3927:
Anyone who has played sports should understand what you are talking about. Coaches every day in all sports around the world challenge players to get better, and they have been doing so since sports were invented. The player at the time often thinks that what is being asked of him is too hard, and he may even resent the coach at the time and think he's an asshole. But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

What typically happens is the player gets better. He overcomes the challenge. He feels pride from that. And he is glad that he didn't quit, and typically thankful that the coach didn't lower the challenge when he was feeling self-doubt. Many players go on to love those same "asshole" coaches for the rest of their lives, because they were hard on them, because they challenged them, because they made them overcome those challenges and become a better person for it.

This is the same dynamic that is, IMO, at the core of the Souls game design. And the people who overcome those challenges end up loving FromSoftware for it. Then they go out and buy and play ALL of the Souls games. Because they want to keep getting that feeling of pride and accomplishment. It's like crack. Hell, it even causes some PC-exclusive gamers like me to think about buying a PS3 and PS4 just to play Demon's Souls and Bloodborne. Brand-loyalty. Brand-pride. Not a bad business model that can do that.

But some people think FromSoftware shouldn't be allowed to design games like that, because it's somehow bad. They think FromSoftware should should be shamed into changing their model. It's a ridiculous notion.

Souls is the exact opposite of that comparison. A Souls game is like a coach making you take 100 routine ground balls and making you start over if you boot one. Well over 90% of a Souls game is fighting trash mobs which are so boring to fight because the same exact strategy works on them all and you just repeat the same thing ad nauseam hoping that it pays off with a good boss fight. It's literally just dodge and hit with stick over and over again. It's not even like the enemies are quick or aggressive either. Nor does the combat system offer anything to "git gud" at, there's nothing to master mechanically.

hanselthecaretaker:
As others have mentioned here though, the Souls games already have a few different easy modes built into the core design. I've used at least a couple of them myself, but I guarantee I personally wouldn't have appreciated the games as much if they just let me pick "Easy" from a title screen menu. That's what some people aren't understanding here; a big chunk of the games' identity is in how it handles this, and so much of the discussions, debates and reverence would disappear if it did what most games do.

If something as innocent as a design choice made in a videogame offends people or hurts their feelings, well then they have a lot of growing up to do.

Okay, but why? What is the difference between using an easy mode and using an easy mode? The way you describe it, it sounds like its just an ego thing; like you don't want to admit you're making it easy by outright picking the option but ways of doing it subtly are fine.

Oh, and surely if getting annoyed at a design choice is a sign of immaturity then you have no argument? Arguing against putting in an easy mode would be arguing against a design choice, meaning you apparently have a lot of growing up to do? You're throwing a hissy fit about how everything must be your way and calling everyone else immature

Kerg3927:

Anyone who has played sports should understand what you are talking about. Coaches every day in all sports around the world challenge players to get better, and they have been doing so since sports were invented. The player at the time often thinks that what is being asked of him is too hard, and he may even resent the coach at the time and think he's an asshole. But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

What typically happens is the player gets better. He overcomes the challenge. He feels pride from that. And he is glad that he didn't quit, and typically thankful that the coach didn't lower the challenge when he was feeling self-doubt. Many players go on to love those same "asshole" coaches for the rest of their lives, because they were hard on them, because they challenged them, because they made them overcome those challenges and become a better person for it.

This is the same dynamic that is, IMO, at the core of the Souls game design. And the people who overcome those challenges end up loving FromSoftware for it. Then they go out and buy and play ALL of the Souls games. Because they want to keep getting that feeling of pride and accomplishment. It's like crack. Hell, it even causes some PC-exclusive gamers like me to think about buying a PS3 and PS4 just to play Demon's Souls and Bloodborne. Brand-loyalty. Brand-pride. Not a bad business model that can do that.

But some people think FromSoftware shouldn't be allowed to design games like that, because it's somehow bad. They think FromSoftware should should be shamed into changing their model. It's a ridiculous notion.

Got two family members who in fact are sports coaches (one tennis, the other golf), so I know for a fact that what you just described there is a terrible coach. A coach is a teacher, and needs to be able to recognise their student's skill level and adjust how and what they're teaching accordingly. Because otherwise you're not a coach, you're just a brick wall. They're not really going to learn anything from you. One of these days, Kerg, you'll get the hang of analogies but today is not that day.

And didn't you say earlier that you'd still get Dark Souls even if the graphics were tooled after Superhot? So hey, that's you admitting that even if significant changes were made to the game you'd still buy it...so why against the significant change of difficulty levels? People who need the easier mode get to overcome challenges on an appropriate level, and you can still have your hard mode so you can feel all macho about it, so everybody wins. The only person being shamed right now is you and your continued attempt at gatekeeping

Pallindromemordnillap:
And didn't you say earlier that you'd still get Dark Souls even if the graphics were tooled after Superhot? So hey, that's you admitting that even if significant changes were made to the game you'd still buy it...so why against the significant change of difficulty levels? People who need the easier mode get to overcome challenges on an appropriate level, and you can still have your hard mode so you can feel all macho about it, so everybody wins. The only person being shamed right now is you and your continued attempt at gatekeeping

What about the game has any gatekeeping? Anyone and everyone can pick up Dark Souls and get the exact same experience. If you took two players who had never played a Souls game before, they both would have the exact same struggle in the opening of the game. The difference is that one of these players would stop playing after a few deaths, and the other player would figure it out and go on to beat the game.

I would argue that in terms of equality, NOT having difficulty modes in any game is the most fair approach. This would leave the game developer able to craft an experience that is exactly as challenging as they want it to be and thus creating the most balanced and polished experience as possible for everyone who plays. Some developers would make a hard game and others would make easier games, it would then be up to the playerbase to choose the experience that best fits their play style.

Despite what you might think, programming an entire difficulty mode isn't so simple as changing numbers in the game. Player health, damage taking and dealing, monster health and damage, all of these things seem like an easy thing, but in reality it isn't. There is a lot of programming involved in that, and balancing that needs to be done to make sure that the game isn't outright broken one way or the other with these changes. That is also assuming that the developer also doesn't need to modify AI behavior. On easier modes, enemies might not attack as often, the may not use certain attacks at all. There is a lot more to it that just flipping a switch.

Games get made on budgets, and their design foundations are laid out fairly early in development to properly allocate this budget. If extra difficulty modes aren't part of the design from the beginning, adding them later is virtually impossible (post release patches at best).

You are right in some cases. Some games perfectly fit well with a tweaking of numbers to change the entire difficulty of the game. Mass Effect is an example where AI, attacks, and behavior don't need any changing at all and a mere number swap is the only help a player needs to get through the game.

In Souls, the damage output and input is not what makes the game hard. The challenge in Dark Souls lies with learning patterns, learning enemy attacks and how to evade them and punish them. So in order to lower that challenge, Dark Souls, would certainly be one of those games that would require modification to the AI. Enemies would have to be slower in recovering after attacks, giving the player more time to punish. They would also need to remove some attacks in order to make their pattern more predicable.

The point is, it isn't always as easy as flipping a difficulty switch.

And the fact still remains that it is impossible to find a difficulty that fits everyone. World of Warcraft is a perfect example of that. The latest easy-mode raiding thing is the random LFG tool that basically pulls players into a random raid group of 25 people and sticks them against big bosses that have had all their normal mechanics either stripped out completely, or so minimal in their raid impact that the fight requires no effort, no communication, no strategy to defeat. Yet somehow these groups still manage to fail because sometimes even ultra easy isn't enough.

The remake of Crash Bandicoot is extremely hard. And a lot of it is not because enemies are challenging at all. It's merely controlling Crash and making the jumps properly. How do you fix someone's inability to control a character? At some point the player has to be required to figure some shit out.

You cannot balance a game around every possible challenger, you just can't. Games are always going to be better experiences for everybody when developers aren't worried about catering to every possible skill (or lack there of) level.

I don't understand why you can't see that.

^^^I think it could be because some people have been enabled their whole lives, and have an idealist mentality in a world that is anything but. Not necessarily their fault, but not acknowledging the issue or realizing the world doesn't revolve around their wants is another story.

hanselthecaretaker:
^^^I think it could be because some people have been enabled their whole lives, and have an idealist mentality in a world that is anything but. Not necessarily their fault, but not acknowledging the issue or realizing the world doesn?t revolve around their wants is another story.

I blame Participation trophies and perfect attendance awards.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay, but why? What is the difference between using an easy mode and using an easy mode? The way you describe it, it sounds like its just an ego thing; like you don't want to admit you're making it easy by outright picking the option but ways of doing it subtly are fine.

For the umpteenth time, we're the ones defending the design choice as is, and the developer's right to do it the way they want. You're the ones trying to change it. Quit trying to flip that around. You know, if you could somehow get all your strawmen to help you in your video games, you probably wouldn't need an easy mode.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Got two family members who in fact are sports coaches (one tennis, the other golf), so I know for a fact that what you just described there is a terrible coach. A coach is a teacher, and needs to be able to recognise their student's skill level and adjust how and what they're teaching accordingly. Because otherwise you're not a coach, you're just a brick wall. They're not really going to learn anything from you. One of these days, Kerg, you'll get the hang of analogies but today is not that day.

And didn't you say earlier that you'd still get Dark Souls even if the graphics were tooled after Superhot? So hey, that's you admitting that even if significant changes were made to the game you'd still buy it...so why against the significant change of difficulty levels? People who need the easier mode get to overcome challenges on an appropriate level, and you can still have your hard mode so you can feel all macho about it, so everybody wins. The only person being shamed right now is you and your continued attempt at gatekeeping

Why don't you take your brick wall and put it back where you found it? Because you certainly didn't find it in my post.

Of course a coach sets the challenges at a reasonable, obtainable level for players that he thinks are good enough and driven enough to make the team. And if they really and truly can't overcome that threshold or simply don't want to put in the effort, then they don't get to play. End of story. They are free to go play something else. That's life.

And just to clarify, I'm talking about a coach on a team sport here. Not a personal tennis or golf coach who is hired to coach one person, who can patiently tailor his challenges specifically for that person, no matter how lazy and shitty he is, as long as he or his parents have the money to pay. In a team sport, that's usually not possible. Just like it's not possible for each and every person to buy a Dark Souls game that is designed specifically for them and made exactly the way they want it.

And to clarify the clarification, I'm not saying your family members are those types of coaches, but if they do coach a gold or tennis team in which there are limited roster spots available, then I'm pretty sure that they understand that not everyone who wants to make the team can.

I think Jim is just whiny about losing.

Ezekiel:
I don't get Jim's beef with multiplayer. I mean, I fail too. A lot. But it's sometimes more interesting than endlessly fighting braindead AI that can only hold positions and never show fear.

The weird thing is that he actually seemed to do well, so I don't get why he is bitching from one death.

That's why he thinks more games should have easy modes, why he believes there is nothing wrong with an easy mode in any game. I know people like this. They do really well most of the time and then when they lose they moan and scream, "Hacker!" When I'm not good at a game, I keep trying. If I still don't do well, I stop playing it. I don't demand that every game be made exactly for my skill level.

Also, since I've been asked for a game that was made worse by an easy mode... Any Rockstar multiplayer game in the last ten years. Most people suck at aiming, so they put auto-aim in. Most people don't play in Free Aim only servers. People who want to play in a legitimate way are at a big disadvantage.

Ezekiel:
I think Jim is just whiny about losing.

Ezekiel:
I don't get Jim's beef with multiplayer. I mean, I fail too. A lot. But it's sometimes more interesting than endlessly fighting braindead AI that can only hold positions and never show fear.

The weird thing is that he actually seemed to do well, so I don't get why he is bitching from one death.

That's why he thinks more games should have easy modes, why he believes there is nothing wrong with an easy mode in any game. I know people like this. They do really well most of the time and then when they lose they moan and scream, "Hacker!" When I'm not good at a game, I keep trying. If I still don't do well, I stop playing it. I don't demand that every game be made exactly for my skill level.

I have a Leonard Maltin movie guide. Big thick book, which contains short reviews for essentially every movie ever made. If you flip through it, he bitches about pretty much every movie over 2 hours long. He deducts stars from a movie's rating if he deems it "overlong." Now sometimes, yes, a movie really is too long and padded. But his complaint is soooooo common throughout the book, that I suspect his real reason for bitching about long movies is that he probably watches several movies a day, every day. It's his job. It's work to him. Shorter movies means a quicker and easier work day for him. So yeah, he'd like it if the movie industry trended toward making shorter movies.

So when I see a reviewer championing skip buttons or uber easy modes. I can't help but think that the motivation behind it is similarly selfish. They review games for a living. It would make their work easier if they could just faceroll through it and skip the bosses, instead of having to learn to play the game.

CritialGaming:
Despite what you might think, programming an entire difficulty mode isn't so simple as changing numbers in the game. Player health, damage taking and dealing, monster health and damage, all of these things seem like an easy thing, but in reality it isn't. There is a lot of programming involved in that, and balancing that needs to be done to make sure that the game isn't outright broken one way or the other with these changes. That is also assuming that the developer also doesn't need to modify AI behavior. On easier modes, enemies might not attack as often, the may not use certain attacks at all. There is a lot more to it that just flipping a switch.

Games get made on budgets, and their design foundations are laid out fairly early in development to properly allocate this budget. If extra difficulty modes aren't part of the design from the beginning, adding them later is virtually impossible (post release patches at best).

You are right in some cases. Some games perfectly fit well with a tweaking of numbers to change the entire difficulty of the game. Mass Effect is an example where AI, attacks, and behavior don't need any changing at all and a mere number swap is the only help a player needs to get through the game.

In Souls, the damage output and input is not what makes the game hard. The challenge in Dark Souls lies with learning patterns, learning enemy attacks and how to evade them and punish them. So in order to lower that challenge, Dark Souls, would certainly be one of those games that would require modification to the AI. Enemies would have to be slower in recovering after attacks, giving the player more time to punish. They would also need to remove some attacks in order to make their pattern more predicable.

The point is, it isn't always as easy as flipping a difficulty switch.

You're grossly over-exaggerating the amount of effort and programming that goes into balancing games. Dark Souls 1 has a core stat that is literally useless. How does that even make it past the conceptual stages let alone into the final game? And Dark Souls 1 was From's 2nd crack in the series, it wasn't even the 1st game, how is that allowed to happen if devs spend so much time on balancing like several people in the thread claim? In Horizon Zero Dawn, you can kill the game's highest HP enemy in 30 seconds, you think Guerrilla thoroughly balanced the combat and intentionally allowed that? Witcher 3 gives you 2 abilities at the very start of the game that no GM in a tabletop RPG would ever allow a player to have at endgame, let alone level 1. Dragons in DnD don't even get that level of brokenness in abilities. How can shooters not be able to balance basic guns (ARs, SMGs, shotguns, snipers, etc.) yet when it's so freaking easy to do so? Enemy AI is really quite basic and one of the things pretty much no dev even focuses on, which is why we barely see any progression in game AI from gen-to-gen. The guys at Platinum have been making minor tweaks to AI for decades now (dating back to Capcom) with regards to in-game mechanics (taunting) and items along with difficulty levels. It's not nearly that hard.

Difficulty modes (outside of something more elaborate like a Survival mode) are always part of every game's design foundation. How do you think devs actually make the core difficulty mode (regardless if that's "normal" in a game with 5 difficulties or a Souls game without any)? They code the game in mind that changes will have to be made globally or to specific weapons, enemies, abilities, animations, AI, etc. Why would you design/code a game in a way where it takes hours of coding to alter an enemy that ended up quite overpowered? Any competent dev team will be able to adjust that in seconds.

If you understand programming at all, you'd know that the fact that enemy attack patterns need to be coded in to begin with means you can change that stuff on the fly. If an enemy is set to use his nigh impossible to dodge and massively damaging attack 10% of the time, that means you can quickly change 10% to 20% in seconds because the code has to already exist. Or maybe that attack is tied to a cooldown of 30 seconds, which you can easily change to 60 seconds. And any competent dev programs from the beginning with it in mind that things will need to be changed globally regardless if the game is slated to have difficulty levels or not. Say the devs are playing the game and realize enemies aren't using their powerful attacks enough and the game is too easy because of that. Just as an example say every enemy has 5 attacks and Attack_A is every enemy's most powerful attack, you can globally change Attack_A's probability or cooldowns for every enemy in the whole game in seconds. Of course, bosses probably will be designed in a one-by-one nature and separate from normal enemies as boss encounters strive for a different experience.

Do you see how programming smartly from the start saves so much time in the long run even if the game isn't even being made with any difficulty modes in mind? That kind of base programming logic allows for difficulty modes to easily be inserted into really any game especially considering how simplistic most video games really are mechanically. The vast majority of video games deal with combat because combat at its core is mainly math based. It's why video game RPGs focus so much more heavily on combat vs role-playing because combat is so much easier to program.

Ezekiel:
I think Jim is just whiny about losing.

Ezekiel:
I don't get Jim's beef with multiplayer. I mean, I fail too. A lot. But it's sometimes more interesting than endlessly fighting braindead AI that can only hold positions and never show fear.

The weird thing is that he actually seemed to do well, so I don't get why he is bitching from one death.

That's why he thinks more games should have easy modes, why he believes there is nothing wrong with an easy mode in any game. I know people like this. They do really well most of the time and then when they lose they moan and scream, "Hacker!" When I'm not good at a game, I keep trying. If I still don't do well, I stop playing it. I don't demand that every game be made exactly for my skill level.

I've never been very good at MP, especially in shooters. I remember playing quite a bit of Quake Live and TF2 the most on PC, and was struggling to get an even k/d ratio. Same on console, where it was mostly older CoD, Uncharted, and Killzone 2/3. I can count on one hand in each of those that I was the top player in a match, and I've probably put in at least a couple dozen hours each. I recently tried Shadow Fall online and got royally smoked. I like it though because it's probably the only series that isn't plagued with aim assist and you feel like you earn your kills.

I've also never once thought of asking for a handicap or the other players to go easy on me. Really defeats the purpose of aiming to improve.

Kerg3927:

Ezekiel:
I think Jim is just whiny about losing.

Ezekiel:
I don't get Jim's beef with multiplayer. I mean, I fail too. A lot. But it's sometimes more interesting than endlessly fighting braindead AI that can only hold positions and never show fear.

The weird thing is that he actually seemed to do well, so I don't get why he is bitching from one death.

That's why he thinks more games should have easy modes, why he believes there is nothing wrong with an easy mode in any game. I know people like this. They do really well most of the time and then when they lose they moan and scream, "Hacker!" When I'm not good at a game, I keep trying. If I still don't do well, I stop playing it. I don't demand that every game be made exactly for my skill level.

I have a Leonard Maltin movie guide. Big thick book, which contains short reviews for essentially every movie ever made. If you flip through it, he bitches about pretty much every movie over 2 hours long. He deducts stars from a movie's rating if he deems it "overlong." Now sometimes, yes, a movie really is too long and padded. But his complaint is soooooo common throughout the book, that I suspect his real reason for bitching about long movies is that he probably watches several movies a day, every day. It's his job. It's work to him. Shorter movies means a quicker and easier work day for him. So yeah, he'd like it if the movie industry trended toward making shorter movies.

So when I see a reviewer championing skip buttons or uber easy modes. I can't help but think that the motivation behind it is similarly selfish. They review games for a living. It would make their work easier if they could just faceroll through it and skip the bosses, instead of having to learn to play the game.

Now consider that the Souls series is a prime example of games that would incite a lack of patience in reviewers, but still they by and large got hooked on it. I credit its unique design as the primary reason for this. It presented a different kind of challenge than most people were used to, especially in the last couple generations of gaming.

Phoenixmgs:
You're grossly over-exaggerating the amount of effort and programming that goes into balancing games. Dark Souls 1 has a core stat that is literally useless. How does that even make it past the conceptual stages let alone into the final game? And Dark Souls 1 was From's 2nd crack in the series, it wasn't even the 1st game, how is that allowed to happen if devs spend so much time on balancing like several people in the thread claim? In Horizon Zero Dawn, you can kill the game's highest HP enemy in 30 seconds, you think Guerrilla thoroughly balanced the combat and intentionally allowed that? Witcher 3 gives you 2 abilities at the very start of the game that no GM in a tabletop RPG would ever allow a player to have at endgame, let alone level 1. Dragons in DnD don't even get that level of brokenness in abilities. How can shooters not be able to balance basic guns (ARs, SMGs, shotguns, snipers, etc.) yet when it's so freaking easy to do so? Enemy AI is really quite basic and one of the things pretty much no dev even focuses on, which is why we barely see any progression in game AI from gen-to-gen. The guys at Platinum have been making minor tweaks to AI for decades now (dating back to Capcom) with regards to in-game mechanics (taunting) and items along with difficulty levels. It's not nearly that hard.

Difficulty modes (outside of something more elaborate like a Survival mode) are always part of every game's design foundation. How do you think devs actually make the core difficulty mode (regardless if that's "normal" in a game with 5 difficulties or a Souls game without any)? They code the game in mind that changes will have to be made globally or to specific weapons, enemies, abilities, animations, AI, etc. Why would you design/code a game in a way where it takes hours of coding to alter an enemy that ended up quite overpowered? Any competent dev team will be able to adjust that in seconds.

If you understand programming at all, you'd know that the fact that enemy attack patterns need to be coded in to begin with means you can change that stuff on the fly. If an enemy is set to use his nigh impossible to dodge and massively damaging attack 10% of the time, that means you can quickly change 10% to 20% in seconds because the code has to already exist. Or maybe that attack is tied to a cooldown of 30 seconds, which you can easily change to 60 seconds. And any competent dev programs from the beginning with it in mind that things will need to be changed globally regardless if the game is slated to have difficulty levels or not. Say the devs are playing the game and realize enemies aren't using their powerful attacks enough and the game is too easy because of that. Just as an example say every enemy has 5 attacks and Attack_A is every enemy's most powerful attack, you can globally change Attack_A's probability or cooldowns for every enemy in the whole game in seconds. Of course, bosses probably will be designed in a one-by-one nature and separate from normal enemies as boss encounters strive for a different experience.

Do you see how programming smartly from the start saves so much time in the long run even if the game isn't even being made with any difficulty modes in mind? That kind of base programming logic allows for difficulty modes to easily be inserted into really any game especially considering how simplistic most video games really are mechanically. The vast majority of video games deal with combat because combat at its core is mainly math based. It's why video game RPGs focus so much more heavily on combat vs role-playing because combat is so much easier to program.

Are you a programmer? Have you ever worked in the video game development industry? I'm not necessarily doubting what you're saying, just curious about your credentials.

I would argue that none of that is very relevant. It certainly does divert resources, attention, and focus away from the primary target audience to create a game that caters to everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but at the end of the day, a game entirely focused on a specific type of gamer is more likely to result in a better game for that specific type of gamer. And developers are absolutely under no obligation to cater to everyone if they don't want to.

Kerg3927:

Are you a programmer? Have you ever worked in the video game development industry? I'm not necessarily doubting what you're saying, just curious about your credentials.

I would argue that none of that is very relevant. It certainly does divert resources, attention, and focus away from the primary target audience to create a game that caters to everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but at the end of the day, a game entirely focused on a specific type of gamer is more likely to result in a better game for that specific type of gamer. And developers are absolutely under no obligation to cater to everyone if they don't want to.

It's not about WANTING to cater to everyone. It's that they CAN'T. That is an impossible task that nobody seems to get.

It's like how does an all beef hotdog appeal to a vegan AND a meateater at the same time?

CritialGaming:

Kerg3927:

Are you a programmer? Have you ever worked in the video game development industry? I'm not necessarily doubting what you're saying, just curious about your credentials.

I would argue that none of that is very relevant. It certainly does divert resources, attention, and focus away from the primary target audience to create a game that caters to everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but at the end of the day, a game entirely focused on a specific type of gamer is more likely to result in a better game for that specific type of gamer. And developers are absolutely under no obligation to cater to everyone if they don't want to.

It's not about WANTING to cater to everyone. It's that they CAN'T. That is an impossible task that nobody seems to get.

It's like how does an all beef hotdog appeal to a vegan AND a meateater at the same time?

I would also argue that sometimes a developer knows what a consumer wants more than the consumer himself. A player may say that they want a game to be easier, but then play it on easy mode and quickly become bored because it's too easy and the rewards now come too cheap.

Like if you polled a million kids on any given day and asked them, "Would you like it to be Christmas today?" Pretty much all of them would answer, "Fuck yeah! Presents!" But if it actually was Christmas every day, Christmas would probably become very boring.

And in that way, adults are a lot like kids except typically bigger and hairier. We want what we can't easily get. If you make it easy to obtain, we probably won't want it as much anymore.

I think making games too easy to complete can end up actually making those games less popular. The people who wanted the easy mode get bored quickly and move on to another game, because the rewards they were once clamoring for now feel empty and grant no satisfaction. And I think developers know this, which is why they don't always give gamers what they say they want.

CritialGaming:
What about the game has any gatekeeping? Anyone and everyone can pick up Dark Souls and get the exact same experience. If you took two players who had never played a Souls game before, they both would have the exact same struggle in the opening of the game. The difference is that one of these players would stop playing after a few deaths, and the other player would figure it out and go on to beat the game.

Go back and read that paragraph again. Its not the game I'm accusing of gatekeeping, its Kerg. Plus your argument only works if the two gamers you've picked are clones with the exact level of prior experience and familiarity. You've mentioned before that you have little skill with RTS games, we get you playing one of them against someone who's played them before then you think the two of you are going to have the same experience?

CritialGaming:
I would argue that in terms of equality, NOT having difficulty modes in any game is the most fair approach. This would leave the game developer able to craft an experience that is exactly as challenging as they want it to be and thus creating the most balanced and polished experience as possible for everyone who plays. Some developers would make a hard game and others would make easier games, it would then be up to the playerbase to choose the experience that best fits their play style.

Honestly my only problem with a system like this would be you still get the same subset of assholes like Kerg who'd be like "Oh you only play Easy Game? I play Hard Game. Why don't you play Hard Game? Just try you noob!"

CritialGaming:
Despite what you might think, programming an entire difficulty mode isn't so simple as changing numbers in the game. Player health, damage taking and dealing, monster health and damage, all of these things seem like an easy thing, but in reality it isn't. There is a lot of programming involved in that, and balancing that needs to be done to make sure that the game isn't outright broken one way or the other with these changes. That is also assuming that the developer also doesn't need to modify AI behavior. On easier modes, enemies might not attack as often, the may not use certain attacks at all. There is a lot more to it that just flipping a switch.

Games get made on budgets, and their design foundations are laid out fairly early in development to properly allocate this budget. If extra difficulty modes aren't part of the design from the beginning, adding them later is virtually impossible (post release patches at best).

You are right in some cases. Some games perfectly fit well with a tweaking of numbers to change the entire difficulty of the game. Mass Effect is an example where AI, attacks, and behavior don't need any changing at all and a mere number swap is the only help a player needs to get through the game.

In Souls, the damage output and input is not what makes the game hard. The challenge in Dark Souls lies with learning patterns, learning enemy attacks and how to evade them and punish them. So in order to lower that challenge, Dark Souls, would certainly be one of those games that would require modification to the AI. Enemies would have to be slower in recovering after attacks, giving the player more time to punish. They would also need to remove some attacks in order to make their pattern more predicable.

The point is, it isn't always as easy as flipping a difficulty switch.

One of my favourite games is Spartan: Total Warrior, and one of the reasons I find it so replayable is because I can take different approaches to it depending on how I feel. Set it to an easier mode and the enemies are just Recruits or Legionaries, easy to take with shields that break, only dangerous in larger numbers where they can try to swarm you. Play it on a harder mode and instead you get the Praetorians, Assassins, Undead, Flamethrowers...enemies who are tougher, stronger, smarter and who have specialised moves or attacks so this isn't just a case of tweaking a few numbers. This was done in a game in 2005, made by the relatively small Creative Assembly. So I find your plea that difficulty modes are super difficult for a company with a larger team, bigger budget and better tech to be complete hyperbole.

CritialGaming:
And the fact still remains that it is impossible to find a difficulty that fits everyone. World of Warcraft is a perfect example of that. The latest easy-mode raiding thing is the random LFG tool that basically pulls players into a random raid group of 25 people and sticks them against big bosses that have had all their normal mechanics either stripped out completely, or so minimal in their raid impact that the fight requires no effort, no communication, no strategy to defeat. Yet somehow these groups still manage to fail because sometimes even ultra easy isn't enough.

The remake of Crash Bandicoot is extremely hard. And a lot of it is not because enemies are challenging at all. It's merely controlling Crash and making the jumps properly. How do you fix someone's inability to control a character? At some point the player has to be required to figure some shit out.

I mean, I've seen that Crash Bandicoot will grant players extra lives or invincibility if they're struggling in an area. The developers have added in ways of helping players who need it. Kind of undermines your "oh its just tough so people who can't do it can't be helped" argument when the people who can't do it are being helped

CritialGaming:
You cannot balance a game around every possible challenger, you just can't. Games are always going to be better experiences for everybody when developers aren't worried about catering to every possible skill (or lack there of) level.

I don't understand why you can't see that.

Because its wrong? Because its an opinion you're proffering from your point of view of "I like the challenge" while not considering the myriad of other reasons people play a game?

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay, but why? What is the difference between using an easy mode and using an easy mode? The way you describe it, it sounds like its just an ego thing; like you don't want to admit you're making it easy by outright picking the option but ways of doing it subtly are fine.

For the umpteenth time, we're the ones defending the design choice as is, and the developer's right to do it the way they want. You're the ones trying to change it. Quit trying to flip that around. You know, if you could somehow get all your strawmen to help you in your video games, you probably wouldn't need an easy mode.

If you were just defending design choices then you wouldn't care if there were easy mode or not, because hey that's the designers' choice. Instead, here you are trying to insist that adding easy modes is somehow inferior, and that would be the point I'm arguing against. Hence why I was asking hansel what the difference was between him using easy modes and someone else choosing to play on easy mode. Where you got "design choice" from that I have no idea.
And for that matter, where exactly am I creating strawmen here? A strawman would be acting like you want all games to only have hard modes forever more. Pointing out your poor logic and calling you out on bad behaviour is not a strawman no matter how much you may wish it so.

Kerg3927:
Why don't you take your brick wall and put it back where you found it? Because you certainly didn't find it in my post.

Wrong.

Kerg3927:
But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

See that? Right there? Those words of yours I quoted? That's where I got 'brick wall' from. Sorry dude, but trying to insist you never said something (again) is futile when I can just go back and find where you said it.

Kerg3927:
Of course a coach sets the challenges at a reasonable, obtainable level for players that he thinks are good enough and driven enough to make the team. And if they really and truly can't overcome that threshold or simply don't want to put in the effort, then they don't get to play. End of story. They are free to go play something else. That's life.

Ah so you agree that a coach (which, remember, is a stand in for the game) should set challenges that are appropriate for the player, that they actually have a chance at succeeding. So why are you against easy modes? Because that would be what easy modes are. Sticking to the sport analogy, they're the warm-up before the main event rather than being immediately asking to do 100 laps

Kerg3927:
And just to clarify, I'm talking about a coach on a team sport here. Not a personal tennis or golf coach who is hired to coach one person, who can patiently tailor his challenges specifically for that person, no matter how lazy and shitty he is, as long as he or his parents have the money to pay. In a team sport, that's usually not possible. Just like it's not possible for each and every person to buy a Dark Souls game that is designed specifically for them and made exactly the way they want it.

And to clarify the clarification, I'm not saying your family members are those types of coaches, but if they do coach a gold or tennis team in which there are limited roster spots available, then I'm pretty sure that they understand that not everyone who wants to make the team can.

Firstly, I find it amusing that as soon as I mention knowing coaches you're like "Oh no but I actually meant this kind of coach". If I say they do teach team sports are you going to declare "Oh no I actually meant this kind of coach playing by this kind if rules" and just keep narrowing it down further and further? Thats a blatant attempt at shifting the goalposts there and I think we both know it
Secondly, its an attempt at shifting the goalposts that undermines your point. Why exactly are you talking about team sports? Team sports are a terrible stand-in for Dark Souls, because Dark Souls isn't a team game. A team would require all participants be roughly the same level, whatever that level may be, because otherwise things get lopsided. Dark Souls does not, because the only person playing it is you. One person buying Dark Souls is not in competition with the next person buying Dark Souls. This seems to be the root of your thinking, that another guy playing the game somehow affects you playing the game, that them playing on easy somehow cheapens your victories on hard. But thats just not how it works Kerg and you need to get over this hang-up

Round and round we go. Can't reason with a wall apparently. Should have known better. I'm done here, things don't make sense anymore.

Pallindromemordnillap:
If you were just defending design choices then you wouldn't care if there were easy mode or not...

Dude... we're talking about Dark Souls? It currently doesn't have an easy mode? I'm defending that choice? Any of that ring a bell?

Pallindromemordnillap:
Instead, here you are trying to insist that adding easy modes is somehow inferior...

Hidetaka Miyazaki is the one who decided that including an easy mode in Dark Souls would be "inferior." Not me. He decided not to do it. The Souls series is one of the greatest success stories in the history of video games. Why don't you go tell him that his game design sucks?

Pallindromemordnillap:
And for that matter, where exactly am I creating strawmen here?

See above.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
But, IMO, a good coach doesn't bend. He appeals to the player's sense of self-pride, maybe even using smartass insults to goad him, and the only "out" he offers him is to quit. In other words, "git gud or gtfo."

See that? Right there? Those words of yours I quoted? That's where I got 'brick wall' from. Sorry dude, but trying to insist you never said something (again) is futile when I can just go back and find where you said it.

A brick wall is impenetrable. An obstacle is not. It's something that can usually be overcome by those who put in the effort. Big difference.

If an (American) football coach says, "I need all of my offensive linemen to be able to bench press at least 225 pounds, or they can't play," that's an obstacle. If he doesn't lower that requirement, that means he's not "bending." But it doesn't make it a brick wall.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
Of course a coach sets the challenges at a reasonable, obtainable level for players that he thinks are good enough and driven enough to make the team. And if they really and truly can't overcome that threshold or simply don't want to put in the effort, then they don't get to play. End of story. They are free to go play something else. That's life.

Ah so you agree that a coach (which, remember, is a stand in for the game) should set challenges that are appropriate for the player, that they actually have a chance at succeeding. So why are you against easy modes? Because that would be what easy modes are. Sticking to the sport analogy, they're the warm-up before the main event rather than being immediately asking to do 100 laps

Kerg3927:
And just to clarify, I'm talking about a coach on a team sport here. Not a personal tennis or golf coach who is hired to coach one person, who can patiently tailor his challenges specifically for that person, no matter how lazy and shitty he is, as long as he or his parents have the money to pay. In a team sport, that's usually not possible. Just like it's not possible for each and every person to buy a Dark Souls game that is designed specifically for them and made exactly the way they want it.

And to clarify the clarification, I'm not saying your family members are those types of coaches, but if they do coach a gold or tennis team in which there are limited roster spots available, then I'm pretty sure that they understand that not everyone who wants to make the team can.

Firstly, I find it amusing that as soon as I mention knowing coaches you're like "Oh no but I actually meant this kind of coach". If I say they do teach team sports are you going to declare "Oh no I actually meant this kind of coach playing by this kind if rules" and just keep narrowing it down further and further? Thats a blatant attempt at shifting the goalposts there and I think we both know it
Secondly, its an attempt at shifting the goalposts that undermines your point. Why exactly are you talking about team sports? Team sports are a terrible stand-in for Dark Souls, because Dark Souls isn't a team game. A team would require all participants be roughly the same level, whatever that level may be, because otherwise things get lopsided. Dark Souls does not, because the only person playing it is you. One person buying Dark Souls is not in competition with the next person buying Dark Souls. This seems to be the root of your thinking, that another guy playing the game somehow affects you playing the game, that them playing on easy somehow cheapens your victories on hard. But thats just not how it works Kerg and you need to get over this hang-up

I simply clarified that I was thinking about a team sport. Sorry for the original omission. My bad.

I was talking about the "dynamic" of a coach teaching a player the virtues of overcoming difficult challenges, and how players are usually thankful of the tough love afterward but may be resentful of it initially. It's pretty incredible, and I've experienced it and seen it first hand. And I think it is a core dynamic at play in the Souls game design. I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept. Maybe it would be helpful if you watched a sports movie? How about Hoosiers or maybe Remember the Titans?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 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