Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Houseman]

I have to wonder how many people here saying "making games more inclusive ruins them" also have complained "they stopped making that series I liked because sales were bad".

- Someone gets the idea that they need to make the game more inclusive.
- Core fans don't buy the game because what they enjoy about the series has been removed.
- New demographic fails to materialize.
- "They stopped making that series I liked because sales were bad"

You mean like that? Or were you suggesting that making games more inclusive always leads to more sales?

I remember reading a commitment from one of the people in charge of the Medal of Honor series. They said something like "there just isn't enough interest in a hyper-realistic military shooter these days". No, that's not the reason why MoH didn't sell well, it's because it was a bad, boring game that didn't innovate when compared to CoD. That audience you want exists, and they play games like Arma.

Game execs are often clueless and take the wrong message from low sales. It never occurs to them to think that they failed because they made a bad game, or a game bad.

 

[BrawlMan]

The pros are disappointed with the game because it's "more inclusive" and "more accessible" at the expense of the core audience, and all the things that made great to begin with. Their artisinal product was turned into McDonalds factory-grade beef. They don't like it.

SFV's problems were more than just something as that. Part of the problem, but SFV's major issue was that it was a $60.00 beta with a ton of incomplete content at the time. SFV is fun now, but it took 3-4 years to make that happen. Not to mention, the intrusive ads that are in-game to annoy and waste the players time. Capcom also had this weird thing of wanting to have it both way. They were trying to cater to the pro-tournament scene and casual gamers/casual SF fans at the same time. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. I ain't the best SF player, ever, but this ended not pleasing either side for a while. There is a reason Capcom is not the king of fighting games right now. Double Helix with Killer Instinct, Nertherrealm with MK/Injustice, and Arc Systems with most of their games especially; have hit that stride better than Capcom for the past decade. Having a good and the right balance for experiened fighting game players, and newbies or casuals. With that said, Capcom has gotten better with SFV, it just took longer than it should. The game should have been released in 2017, instead of rushed out the door for 2016.

 

[Martintox]

I believe that it is elitist in its own right to claim that accessibility is an essential thing to consider when designing a video game. It takes root in the flawed notion that a person's legitimacy as a video game player is directly related to the quantity of games that they have played or completed (this happens across all forms of media, for that matter), and that they can be coerced into playing certain titles if they are made more accessible.

People in this thread -- including developers themselves -- have stated that it is unreasonable for creators to compromise on a vision meant for a much more niche demographic from the getgo, but likewise, it's unreasonable to expect the consumer to compromise on their own preferences. If we see journalists advocate the addition of an easy difficulty in Souls-likes, it is because it would be a mark of shame for them to concede that they do not enjoy the challenge therein and would rather play something else. Time and time again, people force themselves to finish popular titles because there is an expectation as a consumer to check out all the big names. The argument of accessibility obfuscates a consumer's right to indignation, as it relies on the assumption that if someone dislikes a game's approach to difficulty, then they simply think it's too hard for them, and would be glad to press onward if the challenge was mitigated.

Imagine a hypothetical re-release of Dark Souls with additional difficulty modes. The changes from one difficulty to another can be as superficial or as complex as you'd like; for all we know, these tweaks could actually make it better than the original version. Regardless of how well done this re-release is, it sends a condescending message to players who did not feel the desire to complete Dark Souls the first time around: "Here is a new edition of the game, designed with you in mind. You didn't want to finish the original version that earned its popularity in the first place, but now you can claim to have legitimately beat an approximation of it. What excuse do you have not to play now?" As long as the video game community continues to have this mindset, players' criticisms will only be met with backhanded compromises of the such.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

If this hasn't been posted yet, from Miyazaki himself-

Spoiler

"We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."

The creator continued: "We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there's different difficulties, that's going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games. It's been the same way for previous titles and it's very much the same with Sekiro."

Whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not, difficulty levels do change the game. It's less about "gatekeeping" and more about adherence to the intended design philosophy. In this respect the developer knows who their audience is, and that is never betrayed or sold out. And if the games do well (which they often do as with the case of FROM's games, Rockstar's games and most of Nintendo's games for a few big examples), that speaks full circle as a testament to their design.

It doesn't mean this philosophy can or should apply to every game by any means, but when it clearly resonates with a significant userbase, there is no reason to banish it from existence either.

The way game difficulty is tackled often seems outdated and in need of new ideas anyways. It should be more dynamic and built into the design of the game itself in some way.

 

[thebobmaster]

My feeling on the matter is that, ultimately, it should be up to the game developer whether they want to include difficulty settings or not. If a developer doesn't include difficulty settings, they shouldn't be lectured over it. If they do include difficulty settings, that shouldn't be used as proof that a game is aimed at "teh casuals".

Some games are designed in a way that makes difficulty settings a relatively trivial matter. It's not as big of a deal, for example, to make an easier difficulty in a Mega Man game. Add a platform here, remove an enemy there, that sort of thing is not as hard to balance. It will take a bit of work to figure out where the platform should be and which enemy is best removed, but that's the extent of it.

On the other hand, adjusting the difficulty level of Dark Souls without just falling into the trap of "this enemy has less health, you have more health" would be a much bigger task. If FROM wanted to put in the work to do so, they shouldn't be pilloried for "making their game more accessible". On the other hand, if they feel more comfortable having a base difficulty setting and sticking with that, they shouldn't be side-eyed for making their games "less accessible". Different games have different audiences, and that's the way it should be. A game that appeals to everyone really doesn't appeal to anyone.

ETA: That said, I do feel that if difficulty levels are included, it is quite unfair to judge a game's difficulty to certain degrees. If you are playing on Hard Mode, in my mind, you have no right to complain that a game is hard. You can complain about the WAY the game changes difficulty, to be fair, but just saying "this game's too hard" when you are playing on the highest difficulty is one of those judgments that comes off as unfair, and blaming the game for your own faults.

 

[Houseman]

Why is it so harmful there's an audience lobbying for accessibility, but the audience defending artistic vision above all is definitively the right one? There are mundane, practical reasons for both.

Woah, let's not conflate difficulty with accessibility. Those are two separate things. Accessibility is allowing the student in a wheelchair enough ramps and elevators so that they can get to their classroom. Accessibility does not mean that there's an "easy mode" version of the midterm.

Being able to play the game (accessibility) is different than being able to beat the game (difficulty).

But to answer the question, because the "lobbyists" are harmful. In their ideal world, they would have developers spend less time on making a good game, and spend more time on making difficulty options.

Speedrunning isn't the intended way to play a game. Yet you don't call it wrong.

Yes, I absolutely would. Speedrunning is the wrong way to play a game. There, I said it.

The argument you're making is that someone who "should" play games a certain way isn't, but the correct ways all boil down to "If you want to discuss games, you have to meet an arbitrary threshold of what I deem should be important."

If the "you" in "if you want to discuss games..." means a games journalist, then yes, that's normally how it works. Each person needs decide whether or not a journalist is worth listening to. This is an entirely subjective process. If they don't pass that criteria, then they get disagreed with. For example, I'm going to consider your entire publication incompetent if one of your people can't get past the tutorial, a la Cuphead.

If the "you" in that sentence refers to the general public in open forums like these, then I can't remember the last time I saw that happen. I'm aware of the trope of "Oh yeah, you say you're a gamer? Then name every video game ever! Ha! You're not a real gamer!", but I can't say I've ever seen that actually happen.

Yet any gaming community has had at least a handful of "I'm trying to get my partner /child / friends into games, what games should I use to introduce them?" threads. Turns out by trying to enforce arbitrary thresholds of behavior that weeds out accessibility for decades makes games really unintuitive, and professional critics have noticed and are speaking up. Now you're trying to enforce the arbitrary standards on them, whole cloth, because... You're convinced they don't know what they're talking about? You think they're not really attentive to games? You think games are perfect and should be above criticism? I'm not sure I'm really getting where these standards are coming from, but they always boil down to gatekeeping in a way that isn't helpful, useful, or good.

Yes, I'm convinced these "professional critics" don't know what they're talking about. I've seen them struggle with the controls. I've seen them struggle to grasp basic concepts. They've proven to me that they don't know what they're talking about, and that they have no business being "professional critics".

Again, you're generating a clear Us and Them in this discussion. Game critics are all folks who play games.

Do they really? Then why can't they beat the tutorial? Why don't they know how to move around in a 3D environment from a first-person perspective? Why do they want easier difficulty modes when the rest of us can play on "normal" with no problems?

If they did, I'd expect them to talk more about things like game mechanics, but instead it seems like they just want to talk about politics. For example, one headline reads "Rock Paper Shotgun Author Nate Crowley Claims Nemesis Promotes “Violence Against Women,” Takes Issue With Jill’s Attractiveness in Resident Evil 3 Review". Granted, this is only what it "seems" like, because I stopped listening to games journalists a long time ago. If they want to win me back, first they should stop making absolute fools of themselves every other week.

Celeste is a game with a wide variety of accessibility options, but playing "as intended" without those turned on enables achievements and certain accolades within the game. But those who want to experience the game for the game's experience can just dial down the difficulty and play through the story with enough tools to not have to struggle through hours of precision practicing.

And that's a great thing that nobody has any problems with, because this is a new IP.

There's a game called Code Vein, which is basically Anime Vampire Dark Souls. It's a lot easier than Dark Souls. Everyone was fine with this because they didn't take Dark Souls and alter it so that it appeals to more people, they made an entirely new thing. Nobody has a problem with it because it's a new IP.

People get upset when an existing IP is changed to include a different demographic (often at the expense of the original demographic), not when a new IP is made to capture that different demographic.

So what most critics are asking for isn't actually going to harm what a game could be, it just wants to amplify potential accessibility practices that can make games well-suited to wider audiences.

I disagree. I don't think you can take something niche and turn it into something "well-suited to wider audiences" without ruining it. Like I said above, If you want to make a new IP suited to wider audiences, by all means go ahead and do that. If you want to take something people love and change it, no, that's bad, don't do that.

However, putting in a mode to Street Fighter V that introduces wider parry windows and easier links could have been accomplished without taking away tournament-level skill viability. Tournaments just won't use that mode, same as the Smash scene doesn't enable big mode or items.

I played a game like that. I think it was a guilty gear or something. They have an "easy mode" where you can just repeatedly mash a button and the game will pull off the best combos for you. I tried it out. Did it teach me anything? No. Did I improve at the game? No. When I turned it off, did I get absolutely destroyed by everyone else online? Yes. So why does this easy mode exist?

Just so that my dad is able to pick up the controller, mash buttons and beat the CPU? Has my dad been "included" into the fighting game community now? No, because everyone knows that he isn't playing the game "the right way", or "the way the game developers intended".

Best case scenario, fighting game tournaments will hold a side-event where they invite all the dads to play on easy mode and mash buttons. But then you haven't "included" them into the community, you've created two separate communities, one for all the dads that play on easy mode, and one for everyone else. Is that what you want?

1/2

 

[Houseman]

This is more pronounced in the fighting game industry, but the same thing will take a similar shape in other communities. You'll end up with people being unable to have discussions about the same game because they're playing it with different settings and having different experiences. People will naturally re-form groups and you'll be in the same boat, asking for even more "inclusiveness" because the people who play on "normal" won't mesh with the people who play on "easy".

Alice: "Oh yeah, I just got past the 4th boss. That was really difficult. I had to really rely on the environment and use spells for the first time"
Bob: "I didn't think it was all that hard. I just hit it a bunch until it died. In fact, I got bored and haven't played the game since"
Alice: "Oh, you must be really good at the game. What difficulty are you playing on?"
Bob: "Easy mode, with invincibility turned on, and extra weapon damage"
Alice: "Oh..."

Bioshock 1 is a good example of this. If you play the game on Easy, you can just run around, guns blazing, and tank everything. If you play the game on harder difficulties, then you actually have to learn and make use of every tool the game gives you. You actually have to set plasmid traps and approach battles with foresight. You get to experience the same story either way, but if story is all you want, you might as well just watch a playthrough on youtube. The point of playing a game is that it's an interactive experience, and unless you play the game the way the developer intended, you will end up having a different experience. This may either worsen or improve your opinion of the game, but it usually worsens it. Obviously, this effects sales, which effects the longevity of the franchise.

This also works both ways. If you take a game intended to be played on "normal", and crank it up to the hardest difficulty right off the bat, you might end up with a worse experience. I did that once. I played Sniper Elite 3, for the first time, on the hardest difficulty. There were no UI elements. There were no in-game hints or explanations of the mechanics. I ended up misunderstanding how the game was meant to be played, and so I played it wrong. I didn't know that you get "three chances" to shoot before enemies start coming after you, so I just assumed that you only get once chance. I didn't know that enemies had a "caution" meter that determines whether or not they go on alert. After I beat the game, I went back and played it on "normal" to see what it was like, and I was amazed at all the differences and little mechanics that I had been previously unaware of.

tl;dr - It's all about the carefully-crafted intended experience. The more you open up for customization, the more your experience changes, for better or for worse (usually worse)

This is another place where I have to take guesses at what you mean. Give me specifics, what is the "incompetence" specifically you think is pervasive in the games crit space, and why do you think that it's a fair title to give to critics in general?

Mainstream critics in general.

- the Dean Takahashi Cuphead fiasco.
- Polygon's "DOOM GAMEPLAY - The First Thirty Minutes", where the person playing doesn't seem to know how to move around in 3D space, and end up shooting the floor half the time.
- Being unable to beat games
- A gradual shift where journos talk less about the game itself and more about politics
- Jeff Gerstmann being fired from gamespot for criticizing Kayne & Lynch after Edios paid enough to transform the entire site into a big ad

To name a few.

In a menu called "Accessibility Options," include a toggle for reduced enemy damage, a toggle for increased player damage, a toggle that gives all shields the long parry timing, a toggle that reduces enemy attack knockback, and a toggle that makes it so players cannot roll or be knocked off of ledges. Any of these can be toggled on or off.

I'd imagine that is a pretty decent starting point.

I'm not a developer, so I have to make a few guesses as to what of those would be most challenging to code for. I'd assume the ledge-immunity toggle would be the most complex behavior, so that one would probably be what leads to cuts, if at all. And I'd probably cut one of the optional mini-bosses, which should shave some time off of development and reduce relatively little of the existing content while giving extra time to the toggle coding.

Yeah, that's the thing people are afraid of. You propose cutting content in order to add, what are in essence, cheats to the game. The thing I said up above about the intended experience also applies here.

Also, do you have any evidence that making a game "more inclusive" in this way will actually attract a larger audience? Has this ever worked before?

2/2

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If this hasn't been posted yet, from Miyazaki himself-

Spoiler

"We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."

The creator continued: "We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there's different difficulties, that's going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games. It's been the same way for previous titles and it's very much the same with Sekiro."

Whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not, difficulty levels do change the game. It's less about "gatekeeping" and more about adherence to the intended design philosophy. In this respect the developer knows who their audience is, and that is never betrayed or sold out. And if the games do well (which they often do as with the case of FROM's games, Rockstar's games and most of Nintendo's games for a few big examples), that speaks full circle as a testament to their design.

It doesn't mean this philosophy can or should apply to every game by any means, but when it clearly resonates with a significant userbase, there is no reason to banish it from existence either.

The way game difficulty is tackled often seems outdated and in need of new ideas anyways. It should be more dynamic and built into the design of the game itself in some way.

What Miyazaki said isn't true though as difficulty is subjective, Dark Souls isn't a challenging game to everyone.

Also, from your articles;
"Difficulty is too subjective and there are no standards in place – one player’s 'Easy' is another’s 'Very Hard'."

So many games are really simplistic under-the-hood because almost all get their challenge from combat whether it be shooters, melee action combat games, horror games, and even RPGs. Combat is very much on the simpler end of the gameplay spectrum (to develop for), it's why RPGs depend on combat for much of their game length instead of stuff RPGs should actually be doing. Simply increasing player health nets the player a couple more mistakes before dying, it's a super easy way to afford the player a bigger margin for error and it's not changing the core game in anyway. Games are also horribly balanced to begin with, pretty much every RPG becomes joke easy if you do all the sidequests because you become overleveled. How is the genre still constantly making the same mistakes caused by poor game design? Many times you need to change the difficulty during the game to keep any sense of balance (*cough* God of War *cough*). So, difficulty modes aren't that outdated when you're using simple number-based gameplay (combat). Deliver more complex gameplay that makes difficulty settings outdated and then they'll be outdated.

 

[Houseman]

Simply increasing player health nets the player a couple more mistakes before dying, it's a super easy way to afford the player a bigger margin for error and it's not changing the core game in anyway

Suppose that an RPG does give you a health boost in order to make the game easier. That might influence how a player plays the game, and would change the "core" of it. They might interact less with the mechanics of the game and just mash the basic attack. They might not use specials, spells, or items as much. They might not craft or enhance or experiment with gear as much. They might not explore and do sidequests in order to level up as much.

Like I said in my Bioshock example above, if you play on easy, you can just rely on guns, but if you play on the harder difficulties, you really have to rely on all your plasmids and come at each enemy encounter with a plan that is more complicated than "shoot the enemy in the face".

In a good game, everything in a game is the way that it is to create a specific experience. If you change one of those things, you're also changing the experience. Even something as simple as giving the player more health.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Suppose that an RPG does give you a health boost in order to make the game easier. That might influence how a player plays the game, and would change the "core" of it. They might interact less with the mechanics of the game and just mash the basic attack. They might not use specials, spells, or items as much. They might not craft or enhance or experiment with gear as much. They might not explore and do sidequests in order to level up as much.

Like I said in my Bioshock example above, if you play on easy, you can just rely on guns, but if you play on the harder difficulties, you really have to rely on all your plasmids and come at each enemy encounter with a plan that is more complicated than "shoot the enemy in the face".

In a good game, everything in a game is the way that it is to create a specific experience. If you change one of those things, you're also changing the experience. Even something as simple as giving the player more health.

You can "suppose" 'till the cows come home. Suppose somebody else makes a few more mistakes than you because you're better at the game so they play on the mode that affords them a couple more mistakes. You'll both in theory have the same experience. RPGs are usually horribly balanced so coming up with hypotheticals is pointless. Suppose you do all the sidequests and become overleveled, suppose you min/max your character(s) as much as possible; suppose you craft all the best gear and crafted gear is superior to found gear, suppose you do all 3 of those things; you can skip/not use as much important mechanics in the game as well. What makes that any worse than someone picking easy difficulty and actually being challenged more than you because they're just doing the main quests? Suppose I want to experience all the content of the game thereby becoming overleveled but I also want to be always challenged; where am I to go for that if not difficulty levels? I'd have to go to mods then. I already got over 10 mods enabled in Divinity OS2 before even playing it.

Bioshock can only be considered challenging in like the 1st couple hours. After killing a Big Daddy or 2 and getting access to bullet types (I think just bullet types is all you need to kill Big Daddies efficiently IIRC) and plasmids and gear, the game is hardly challenging. So what if someone wants to brute force through the game if they want? Bioshock isn't really about its systems and gameplay, it's kind of a poor-man's immersive sim if you just analyze the gameplay. IIRC (and I can just look at the time stamps of my trophies) I took a year break on the game because the middle section of that game is so boring. What's wrong with just putting it on very easy, coasting past the boredom, then moving the difficulty back up once the game picks back up again?

The flaw in your argument is that you can't create a specific experience because there's too many variables (RPGs as explained above). Even in a very tightly paced linear game, the player themselves is the variable for how difficult the experience is. PvP of like any game proves how wide the skillgap among players is. You can have somebody play Dark Souls with just a sword and face less challenge than somebody else using shields and magic and upgrading their gear and totally engaging in more of the game's systems.

Isn't the guy playing Vanquish on Easy slowing learning the game's systems and getting good at the game getting a more "intended" and better experience than the guy playing on Hard and playing it like a boring cover shooter?

 

[Houseman]

RPGs are usually horribly balanced so coming up with hypotheticals is pointless.

Then the solution to the problem of overleveling in RPGs isn't solved necessarily solved by difficulty settings, it's solved by designing a well-balanced game.

So what if someone wants to brute force through the game if they want?

Then they end up missing out on the experience that the developer intended for them to have, that's all.

The flaw in your argument is that you can't create a specific experience because there's too many variables (RPGs as explained above). Even in a very tightly paced linear game, the player themselves is the variable for how difficult the experience is.

It's true that no two people will have the exact same experience with a game, but developers will try as hard as they can to create an intended experience. That's not even debatable. I can get quotes from lots of developers saying "I put X mechanic in there so that players will do Y" Miyazaki was already quoted above.

Is your rebuttal: "It's not possible to do it perfectly, so throw the whole thing out"?

Isn't the guy playing Vanquish on Easy slowing learning the game's systems and getting good at the game getting a more "intended" and better experience than the guy playing on Hard and playing it like a boring cover shooter?

Yes. I brought up a similar point in my own experiences with Sniper Elite 3, where I played it on the hardest difficulty right off the bat. I'm not opposed to easy modes, or even multiple difficulty modes. I'm just opposed to shoving them in where they don't belong.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

What Miyazaki said isn't true though as difficulty is subjective, Dark Souls isn't a challenging game to everyone.

Also, from your articles;
"Difficulty is too subjective and there are no standards in place – one player’s 'Easy' is another’s 'Very Hard'."

So many games are really simplistic under-the-hood because almost all get their challenge from combat whether it be shooters, melee action combat games, horror games, and even RPGs. Combat is very much on the simpler end of the gameplay spectrum (to develop for), it's why RPGs depend on combat for much of their game length instead of stuff RPGs should’ve actually be doing. Simply increasing player health nets the player a couple more mistakes before dying, it's a super easy way to afford the player a bigger margin for error and it's not changing the core game in anyway. Games are also horribly balanced to begin with, pretty much every RPG becomes joke easy if you do all the sidequests because you become overleveled. How is the genre still constantly making the same mistakes caused by poor game design? Many times you need to change the difficulty during the game to keep any sense of balance (*cough* God of War *cough*). So, difficulty modes aren't that outdated when you're using simple number-based gameplay (combat). Deliver more complex gameplay that makes difficulty settings outdated and then they'll be outdated.

How is Miyazaki being untruthful when that very design philosophy has led to some of the most critically and commercially successful games of the last couple generations? It’s not like including difficulty settings automatically make a game well-designed, as is mentioned in both of the articles I linked which criticize that aspect. Yes difficulty is subjective, but as Miyazaki also said, each player has a different way of meeting the challenges presented by the game itself.

People are still discussing the merits of Souls design nearly a decade on, and there’s no shortage of other studios that have tried to emulate it. Sure it’s not perfect by any means, but you don’t see people doing the same for many of its contemporaries.

You say combat is on the simpler end to develop for, but in your opinion it hasn’t been done well yet. So on the contrary, that would make it really difficult to develop for correctly.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Then the solution to the problem of overleveling in RPGs isn't solved necessarily solved by difficulty settings, it's solved by designing a well-balanced game.

I agree as most RPGs are poorly designed; levels aren't even something RPGs need. Though the core of what makes an RPG great has nothing to really do with challenge and the fact that many play them for other reasons than the challenge of combat.

It's true that no two people will have the exact same experience with a game, but developers will try as hard as they can to create an intended experience. That's not even debatable. I can get quotes from lots of developers saying "I put X mechanic in there so that players will do Y" Miyazaki was already quoted above.

Is your rebuttal: "It's not possible to do it perfectly, so throw the whole thing out"?

How is making a game a bit easier allowing players to bypass mechanics and developer intentions? What am I throwing out? Games have had difficulty settings forever so if you could throw "it" out, it's already been thrown out. Dark Souls has some of the most exploitable shit in it that allows the player to play as not intended? Isn't it better for someone to be able to say drop the difficulty a notch to continue trying to play as intended vs having them say "fuck Dark Souls" and go on to poison arrow everything in the game?

Here's a great video on developer intentions and quite a lot of those games have difficulty settings while delivering the intended developer experience

Yes. I brought up a similar point in my own experiences with Sniper Elite 3, where I played it on the hardest difficulty right off the bat. I'm not opposed to easy modes, or even multiple difficulty modes. I'm just opposed to shoving them in where they don't belong.

But, you then played Sniper Elite 3 not as the developer intended. It goes both ways, easy modes are just as unintended as hard modes. A game can be made so easy that you can bypass some mechanics and it can be made too hard that doing intended stuff is no longer feasible. Play Vanquish on god hard and you're now using the game's main mechanics a lot less. Funny thing is, the easier you make Vanquish, the more the player is likely to play the game as intended. Play Bayonetta on NSIC and witch-time is no longer available, are you then playing the game in an unintended fashion? Forcing intended playstyles usually doesn't end well as that Game Maker's Toolkit video shows.

How is Miyazaki being untruthful when that very design philosophy has led to some of the most critically and commercially successful games of the last couple generations? It’s not like including difficulty settings automatically make a game well-designed, as is mentioned in both of the articles I linked which criticize that aspect. Yes difficulty is subjective, but as Miyazaki also said, each player has a different way of meeting the challenges presented by the game itself.

People are still discussing the merits of Souls design nearly a decade on, and there’s no shortage of other studios that have tried to emulate it. Sure it’s not perfect by any means, but you don’t see people doing the same for many of its contemporaries.

You say combat is on the simpler end to develop for, but in your opinion it hasn’t been done well yet. So on the contrary, that would make it really difficult to develop for correctly.

I wasn't insinuating that he was lying or trying to purposefully deceive anyone, I'm saying what he said isn't true as player skill is a variable and you can't create a game that's say 7/10 in difficulty and that be universally true for every player. Every player is going to have a different experience when they play a Souls game. You just can't construct a game where everyone has the same experience no matter how hard you try. You can't even do that in passive mediums like film let alone interactive mediums. Someone might find the "pro" way of playing Souls to be the most fun (because it is the most fun way, Bloodborne kinda proves that) while not liking using magic or shields or arrows or whatever, isn't it better for them to play in an enjoyable manner getting to like the game even if that involves lowering the difficulty vs struggling through the game in a way that's not fun for them or just putting down the game because they ain't having fun?

Souls design isn't really something we haven't had before. It just took several things we've already had and organically and thematically smoothly integrated it into the game. That's why I say Souls design only works for Souls. It feels out of place in Sekiro for example.

When did I say combat hasn't been done well yet? It's been done to death with some devs being amazing at it, some being good, some being OK, some being bad, just like anything else. Combat is simpler to do than say just about anything else. Why do you think RPGs core gameplay is almost always focused around combat instead of developing your character through choice and dialog, the world reacting to your choices and decisions, out-of-the-box thinking, etc.? Because that other stuff is way harder to develop for whereas combat is mainly numbers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, if people playing on a different difficulty setting than you is ruining your game and casual gamers should just git gud or whatever, what about mods? Most mods are going to affect gameplay and thus difficulty (excepting the nude mods, I guess). Are they ruining the game for people who don't use them as well?

And, I guess it's not possible to have harder difficulty settings for people who've got especially good, that would ruin the game as well?

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I agree as most RPGs are poorly designed; levels aren't even something RPGs need. Though the core of what makes an RPG great has nothing to really do with challenge and the fact that many play them for other reasons than the challenge of combat.


How is making a game a bit easier allowing players to bypass mechanics and developer intentions? What am I throwing out? Games have had difficulty settings forever so if you could throw "it" out, it's already been thrown out. Dark Souls has some of the most exploitable shit in it that allows the player to play as not intended? Isn't it better for someone to be able to say drop the difficulty a notch to continue trying to play as intended vs having them say "fuck Dark Souls" and go on to poison arrow everything in the game?

Here's a great video on developer intentions and quite a lot of those games have difficulty settings while delivering the intended developer experience


But, you then played Sniper Elite 3 not as the developer intended. It goes both ways, easy modes are just as unintended as hard modes. A game can be made so easy that you can bypass some mechanics and it can be made too hard that doing intended stuff is no longer feasible. Play Vanquish on god hard and you're now using the game's main mechanics a lot less. Funny thing is, the easier you make Vanquish, the more the player is likely to play the game as intended. Play Bayonetta on NSIC and witch-time is no longer available, are you then playing the game in an unintended fashion? Forcing intended playstyles usually doesn't end well as that Game Maker's Toolkit video shows.



I wasn't insinuating that he was lying or trying to purposefully deceive anyone, I'm saying what he said isn't true as player skill is a variable and you can't create a game that's say 7/10 in difficulty and that be universally true for every player. Every player is going to have a different experience when they play a Souls game. You just can't construct a game where everyone has the same experience no matter how hard you try. You can't even do that in passive mediums like film let alone interactive mediums. Someone might find the "pro" way of playing Souls to be the most fun (because it is the most fun way, Bloodborne kinda proves that) while not liking using magic or shields or arrows or whatever, isn't it better for them to play in an enjoyable manner getting to like the game even if that involves lowering the difficulty vs struggling through the game in a way that's not fun for them or just putting down the game because they ain't having fun?

Souls design isn't really something we haven't had before. It just took several things we've already had and organically and thematically smoothly integrated it into the game. That's why I say Souls design only works for Souls. It feels out of place in Sekiro for example.

When did I say combat hasn't been done well yet? It's been done to death with some devs being amazing at it, some being good, some being OK, some being bad, just like anything else. Combat is simpler to do than say just about anything else. Why do you think RPGs core gameplay is almost always focused around combat instead of developing your character through choice and dialog, the world reacting to your choices and decisions, out-of-the-box thinking, etc.? Because that other stuff is way harder to develop for whereas combat is mainly numbers.

Like many times before, it sounds like you're inserting your personal opinion of what's "correct" and "fun" when playing a game in both of these responses, and asserting it as an absolute truth.

If someone wants to jump into the deep end of SE3, that's a perfectly viable choice based on - as you said - the skill variable.

if someone wants to play Souls the "safe" and "cautious" way, that's also a perfectly viable choice, and even ties into this very comment from Miyazaki himself -

"So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."

In fact, for many people the safe and cautious way is the correct way at first, because they're...yup you guessed it, merely ankle deep in still learning the game. I used a shield a lot in both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls first runs, and yeah sometimes the only way you can kill those dragons is with arrows. I still use both in different situations because it's more feasible than rolling off a narrow ledge to avoid projectile damage (and that's where free movement with shield up really helps in these games, not just lock-on only usage), or for melee builds arrows are the only way of handling distant enemies causing problems.

Just because you don't think it's correct, doesn't mean those players are having a bad time, or playing it the "unfun" way.

The reason you don't understand this seems to be the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the other person's shoes may fit a bit different than your own.

 

[Houseman]

Though the core of what makes an RPG great has nothing to really do with challenge and the fact that many play them for other reasons than the challenge of combat.

Then for the case of games where the challenge isn't what makes the game great, and people play them for reasons other than combat, I suppose it doesn't matter. As long as the developer is okay with it, of course.

How is making a game a bit easier allowing players to bypass mechanics and developer intentions?

The answer is "only when it does". I'm not being flippant, that's really the answer to your question. It happens when it happens. It doesn't happen when it doesn't happen.

If there's a game where players are forced to use all the same mechanics and do what the developer pushes them to do, regardless of difficulty levels, then that's great. That's the gold standard.

If there's a game where certain mechanics can be ignored and you end up playing the game in a different way than what the developer intended, then that's not great. That's what we don't want.

It takes a lot of time and careful planning to get to the gold standard. Adding sliders and dials willy-nilly causes the latter as opposed to the former.

What am I throwing out?

I don't know, that's why I was asking for clarification. You said the flaw in my argument is that it's impossible for game developers to impart one single experience on the audience that plays their game. I was trying to figure out what your point was. I'm still not quite sure.

But, you then played Sniper Elite 3 not as the developer intended. It goes both ways, easy modes are just as unintended as hard modes.

Yep, that's what I did, and I said as much. My experience was changed, for better or for worse. I would agree that hard and easy modes CAN be outside of the developer's intent. For my part, I played the difficulty modes in the wrong order. I should have played it on normal or easy, first, to learn the mechanics, then I should have played it on hard.

If I were a critic, everyone would be fully justified in ridiculing me for doing it wrong and calling for me to be fired based on my incompetence. The majority would only read the headline and the final score, and base their opinions on that. Sales would be impacted.

So tell me, how do you make a well-balanced game that solves this problem?

I'm the wrong person to ask, because I don't play a lot of RPGs, nor am I a professional game designer.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Like many times before, it sounds like you're inserting your personal opinion of what's "correct" and "fun" when playing a game in both of these responses, and asserting it as an absolute truth.

If someone wants to jump into the deep end of SE3, that's a perfectly viable choice based on - as you said - the skill variable.

if someone wants to play Souls the "safe" and "cautious" way, that's also a perfectly viable choice, and even ties into this very comment from Miyazaki himself -

"So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."

In fact, for many people the safe and cautious way is the correct way at first, because they're...yup you guessed it, merely ankle deep in still learning the game. I used a shield a lot in both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls first runs, and yeah sometimes the only way you can kill those dragons is with arrows. I still use both in different situations because it's more feasible than rolling off a narrow ledge to avoid projectile damage (and that's where free movement with shield up really helps in these games, not just lock-on only usage), or for melee builds arrows are the only way of handling distant enemies causing problems.

Just because you don't think it's correct, doesn't mean those players are having a bad time, or playing it the "unfun" way.

The reason you don't understand this seems to be the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the other person's shoes may fit a bit different than your own.

When was I saying a certain way was the correct way? I just listed "what ifs". I said what if such and such player likes playing this way (and is one of the intended ways to play obviously) and the game is too hard for them to play that way and be enjoyable so they lower the difficulty a notch? I didn't say the other ways were wrong. Yeah, I said the "pro" way of playing Souls is more fun to many players, that doesn't lead into it being the only "correct" way to play. Bloodborne and DS1 seem to always be listed in either order as the best 2 Souls games so people obviously like Bloodborne's playstyle. But that's beyond the point because someone's playstyle could be not so popular or something I personally don't like but requires high skill that they don't have but lowering the difficulty allows them to play as such, practice it, and get better at it to play on Normal and eventually Hard. How is that a bad thing? Wouldn't that literally be the player overcoming a challenge in a "way that suits them as a player"?

What are you talking about "other person's shoes may fit different"? I don't play on Easy difficulties and usually start on Hard, I'm not arguing that people must play like me, I'm literally arguing the opposite of that. I'm ALWAYS for any options because, you know, they are OPTIONAL. Just about any game has stuff in that breaks the devs intended way(s) to play like say Dark Souls and Sekiro, altering some numbers is hardly going to break the camel's back when it's already broken.

The answer is "only when it does". I'm not being flippant, that's really the answer to your question. It happens when it happens. It doesn't happen when it doesn't happen.

If there's a game where players are forced to use all the same mechanics and do what the developer pushes them to do, regardless of difficulty levels, then that's great. That's the gold standard.

If there's a game where certain mechanics can be ignored and you end up playing the game in a different way than what the developer intended, then that's not great. That's what we don't want.

It takes a lot of time and careful planning to get to the gold standard. Adding sliders and dials willy-nilly causes the latter as opposed to the former.

When have difficulty levels caused it to happened before? With all the games out there with difficulty levels, it must've happened several times by now. Plus, the PC game environment must absolutely be ruined by all the mods out there. If people want to play game unintended, you ain't going to stop them and difficulty levels almost certainly won't be the thing that allows them to. The whole point of that Game Maker's Toolkit video I posted was literally the saying of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".

I don't know, that's why I was asking for clarification. You said the flaw in my argument is that it's impossible for game developers to impart one single experience on the audience that plays their game. I was trying to figure out what your point was. I'm still not quite sure.

I was asking what you're "so throw the whole thing out?" question was referring to.

Yep, that's what I did, and I said as much. My experience was changed, for better or for worse. I would agree that hard and easy modes CAN be outside of the developer's intent. For my part, I played the difficulty modes in the wrong order. I should have played it on normal or easy, first, to learn the mechanics, then I should have played it on hard.

If I were a critic, everyone would be fully justified in ridiculing me for doing it wrong and calling for me to be fired based on my incompetence. The majority would only read the headline and the final score, and base their opinions on that. Sales would be impacted.

For me, I'd rather read someone's thoughts on the game that played it on the hardest difficulty and mastered the game than someone that didn't honestly. In multiplayer games, getting the thoughts of a top player is far far better than from an average player, that's why balance patches based on community feedback always ends terribly. That's why critics' reviews of multiplayer is damn near meaningless. I'm sure for your favorite games, you can tell me so much more stuff about the ins and outs of those games than any review would tell me.

 

[Houseman]

When have difficulty levels caused it to happened before? With all the games out there with difficulty levels, it must've happened several times by now.

Yes, it has. Bioshock is the example that I keep bringing up, where the game forces you to utilize more of the mechanics the harder you go. Beyond that, let's see what I can google... There's this, from total war (I've never played a game in the series, so I have no experience with it). There's Witcher 3, where potions, oils, and bombs are irrelevant in the easier difficulties and only necessary for the harder ones. MGS3 will give you the tranq gun (with INFINITE AMMO) for free if you start the game on "Very Easy", which eliminates the need for stealth, CQC, and decoys as long as you can just shoot everybody.

Plus, the PC game environment must absolutely be ruined by all the mods out there.

You can think of a modder as a developer, so when you use a mod, you're experiencing the game that the developer (modder) intended.

People who use mods would hopefully have a basic level of awareness required to distinguish between "this game isn't fun because I'm not playing it the way the developer intended, because I installed a mod" and "this game isn't fun!"

I was asking what you're "so throw the whole thing out?" question was referring to.

It was my guess as to what your point was with pointing out the "flaw" in my argument.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Haven't read anything past the first page, but has anyone pointed out that the article never said he didn't want any easy mode? The complaint appears to be about the implementation of the easy mode. Someone wanting an easy mode doesn't mean that they're gonna be satisfied with *any* easy mode. Can make the game easier while still leaving some satisfying elements in it.