You could just have there be a set amount of XP in the world essentially, not having things respawn all over etc.
Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
- Status
With Bioshock, I believe you said on Easy you can just use guns. But isn't Easy there for people who literally aren't good at shooters? So they might not be able to get by just using guns. I have no idea about Total War as I never played it. I'm guessing if the Easy mode was described as being for newbies to the genre, it would be fine for those people. With Witcher 3, the only way to play is on the easiest setting because the combat sucks ass so it takes up as little as your playtime as possible. You can beat anything in that game even if it's like 20 levels above you because quen and axii are so broken, you'll never get hit. Also, Witcher is played for the story too (it's really the only good part of the game), which leads right into MGS3's Very Easy that could be considered cinematic mode if you want (which Kojima literally put in Death Stranding on purpose). Also, you don't have to use the tranq gun either. Several games have game-breaking things in them, most likely by accident, so no problem with house-ruling stuff out, I do that all the time. I don't get why you get upset about this kinda stuff, nothing is stopping you from playing them the "intended" way and if someone wants to play a stealth game, they'll play it like a stealth game. If someone wants to just "watch" MGS3, I'm sure Kojima is fine with them paying for the game instead of watching it on Youtube. I've NEVER seen Metal Gear fans upset that there's a very easy mode, I've never seen fans of Platinum's games (they make hardcore gamers games, you know) saying Bayonetta or Vanquish is ruined because they both have very easy modes. There's always people that are completely new to whatever type of game you're making; if a very easy mode gets them in the door, isn't that better than them not trying it because that mode isn't there and it's advertised as the hardest game ever like Dark Souls?
You're really stretching it here. How is a modder any different from a gamer that doesn't like how the developer intended the game to be played? It's not like modders are professional developers. And, the XCOM 2 devs put in turn timers to force players to not play the game like they did in XCOM 1 because the game is not at its "best" when played like that. What's the difference between a very easy mode removing that mechanic from the game or upset gamers forcefully removing that mechanic from the game via a mod (which they did)?
Fair enough, I just saw the Oblivion example and was like "Well that's definitely the worst model for that sort of balance."
I definitely don't think there's an easy balance to it at all.
This has been mentioned a few times, yes. Also that the easy mode isn't the only easier mode anyway.
I merely meant your personal opinion is your own, and it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else. So there is really no definitive way to play, as long as the player doesn't intentionally cause the game to physically crash.
Why do all options need to be picked from a menu? There is no shortage of ways players can discover and tailor their own difficulty in SoulsBorne just by deciding how to play vs artificially changing values from a menu. For example using gifts at the start, leveling up any variety of stats or gear, baiting enemies, deciding what route to take first, jolly co-op, etc. at one end to doing a Depraved SL1 run with no shield and a starting weapon on the other. It's not "cheesing" the game; it's part of learning the game, which is circumvented by picking a difficulty from a menu and absolutely does change the game whether people want to acknowledge it or not. That's the first sign that a band-aid is being applied to what's essentially a badly designed game, and why Nintendo games for example don't need them. We don't see kids unable to play Nintendo games or complaining because they're too difficult due to a lack of difficulty select.
As I said above earlier, there are certainly still types of games that can benefit more from difficulty sliders like sports, fighting or racing games as those games are more competitive-based and meant to simulate pvp, but even then there should be room for more a more dynamic, organic approach. LFD's AI director is a great solution that's been around for over a decade, and it'd be a shame if this was proprietary technology because it could work wonderfully in other game types as well.
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but I don't think I ever said that. I've said a lot of things in this topic, so I may have just forgotten.
You asked me for examples where game mechanics can be ignored based on the difficulty level. I gave you four. What you said in the block quoted here doesn't seem to be a rebuttal. Even if everything you said is true, it wouldn't show how what I gave you wasn't exactly what you asked for.
I'm going to consider my point proven unless you or someone else can offer a rebuttal.
You're attacking a strawman. It's not about me, or my experience with the game. I've never said, nor do I believe, that how other people play the game affects how I play the game.
Here's why it matters:
- Devs release an easy mode that is not the intended experience.
- People (including game journalists) play the game on easy mode for whatever reason
- People (including game journalists) end up with a worse perception of the game because they didn't get the intended experience
- People (including game journalists) spread their disappointment
- Sales fall
- Series gets cancelled, studio closes
At step 4, people like me pipe up and tell them that the reason for their disappointment is because they weren't "playing the game the right way". Then a third group shows up and accuses people like me of "gatekeeping". People like me are trying to stop the worst case scenario from happening. I'm unsure of what the third group is trying to do.
Yes, it can be better, especially in the short-term, and especially when we only consider individuals. There are pros and cons for both the short-term and the long-term life of the series/studio. One of these cons is that incompetent or rushed games journalists will play the game on easier difficulties and possibly end up giving the game a lower score because of it.
In a perfect world, that new person will play the game on easy, then replay the game on normal to get the intended experience, and only THEN would he share his opinion of the game with others. But we don't live in a perfect world.
Last edited:
What about the other scenario?
- Niche series releases a new game
- Game is more expensive than previous one because improved graphics/bigger game world/etc.
- Sales remain flat because the game is uninviting to new players; only the "old guard" buy it for more of the same
- Devs (or publishers) decide that niche series is no longer profitable and discontinue it
Please avoid using generalizing terms and labels such as "SJWs". This causes unneeded friction within the community.
You left out the part where gamers then blame the SJW's for forcing them to cancel it.
That sounds plausible in theory, but Dark Souls seems to have only been more successful with each title, despite doing exactly this.
Even "hardcore" gamers might feel that a certain series is "uninviting" to them, which means they never get into it. This is not necessarily about difficulty.
"Inviting" new players is primarily done with marketing. The marketing is what says "This is a great time for you to get into the series!" This usually happens when a series is rebooted, reinvented, starts a new arc, moves to a new platform, or a combination of those. Every series faces the problem of introducing new players and remaining stagnant, this isn't a problem exclusive to games without difficulty settings.
You said that my point was ""a well-balanced game" doesn't need difficulty levels"
Me saying "the solution to the problem of overleveling in RPGs isn't solved necessarily solved by difficulty settings" is not that. I didn't say "a well-balanced game doesn't need difficulty levels", I said that one specific problem exclusive to one specific genre of game is not necessarily solved by the inclusion of difficulty levels.
See how those two statements are different? One is a statement about all games not needing difficulty levels if they're well balanced. The other is denies that a specific problem is solved by the inclusion of difficulty levels. Sorry, but I never said what you thought I said.
But if you'd like to point out any areas in which you think my argument is inconsistent, or where I've flip-flopped, feel free.
Last edited:
The "stats" of a player are variable, the game is already changed by the player who is playing it. Leveling up stats as you say is a way of altering the game's difficulty, how is that any different from changing the difficulty that will alter those numbers in a couple seconds vs grinding to alter those numbers? Nintendo games do have easy modes or assist modes or whatever name they give them. There's kids playing Mario or Zelda, which for them is their 1st 3D game, there's no way you can make a fun and challenging static Mario game for someone that has played Mario since SMB1 and someone that's playing their 1st 3D game or 2D Mario game.
Go back to when you 1st mentioned Bioshock and I responded with all you need to defeat the hardest enemies (Big Daddies) is a gun with special ammo. What makes you think you can't just use guns on Normal? What makes you use plasmids? What makes you not go around and shoot every enemy on Normal in MGS3? I'm pretty sure the game has enough ammo and silencers (to not get alerts) to do that. Not to mention, you can just run through the levels if you want. I explained how you hardly need to use any of the mechanics in Witcher to defeat any enemy on the hardest difficulty. I don't know Total War at all so I can't really say much for that.
You really really overestimate how much people care about game journalists and review scores. It also goes the opposite way too. I remember reading Dark Souls comments saying it's literally the hardest game they ever played to only be disappointed that it's not even a hard game. Then, they went and stole the "git gud" meme from MGO2, which was a ridiculously hard game. If you really think a game's journalist or just people on a gaming board are going to accurately tell you how good a game will be for YOU, you got problems.
Last edited:
For these cases, I was very careful to say "harder difficulties" and not "normal difficulty".
- Bioshock
Here's a few quotes from the developers sourced from an interview where they talk about "survivor mode":
This was pretty much what I was saying. It's not the best example of an "intended experience", but it works as an example of mechanics that you only really NEED to use because of the harder difficulty.
To address what you wrote: Yes, you probably can just use guns on Normal. However, I remember ammo being more scarce (my most recent memories are playing the Remaster, which rebalanced the game), so I had to use my melee weapon a lot, especially in the beginning. If you relied only on bullets, you'd probably run out of ammo. That's what makes you use plasmids. In the case of Survivor, even more so.
- MGS3
On harder difficulties, players will spot the dead bodies, go on alert, call in backup, and then shoot you to death. On normal, you can probably get away with it and beat the game eventually, but you'll still probably die a lot. Depends on how much of the game you've memorized. Alerts are dangerous.
- Witcher 3
Let's assume our hypothetical players aren't exploiting an OP technique. In that case, they'd have be more reliant on potions, oils, bombs, etc as they advance in difficulty. During my playthrough, I only started leveling signs after I had made significant progress into the sword skill tree, so I didn't have your experience.
- Total War
Yeah, I don't know either.
The way I see it, it's a sliding scale of being able to just mash the attack button" and needing to use all the mechanics. This scale usually maps directly to the difficulty levels. To illustrate this, enable cheats. See how easy the game is on god mode. Depending on your cheats, you can just 1HK everybody and literally fly through the game. See how many of the game mechanics you're bypassing? That's the most EXTREME example of an "easy mode".
Afterwards, play the game on normal or hard, and see how the game makes you use the mechanics, or else punishes you with death. That, I think, should prove the point. In most games, the easier the difficulty, the fewer mechanics you need to use. The harder the difficulty, the more mechanics you need to use.
It's not just journos and review scores, it's also word of mouth. But yes, maybe I am overestimating it. Maybe the worst case scenario might not ever happen. That would be great. But I'm still going to do my part.
Last edited:
Taking from the OP, so I apologize if I've missed the ensuing points already.
Sekiro needs an easy mode > Sekiro is based around Rock/Paper/Scissor counter mechanics. IDK how much simpler you need it. Its trial and error figuring out which thing counters which attack, but they're not exactly diverse (though we stepped up from Souls where you could just roll out of the current dimension and through every hit).
Easy has never ruined a game > I mean, generally no. I'd struggle to think of a case where it does outside of maybe outright cheat code stuff. Since most "Easy modes" amount to simply buffing your health/damage, it rarely will dispense with the gameplay altogether. As someone mentioned Bioshock up there, mayhaps Easy mode will give you more options in approaches (which is honestly a strenght), but it doesn't curtail your ability to engage with any of the mechanics beyond your desire to actually bother. Granted, there's always that subset that will take the simplest dullest road to victory (in Warframe we call them Inaros and Mesa mains)
Nothing to say on Cuphead, never played it.
FF7RE having its Easy mode, I mean, to my recollection, the difficulty setting when its been present in FF has literally allowed the game to play itself. I wouldn't call this current iteration a departure. And its probably a smart nod to their major target market, who are kind of rocking the 35+ age group and maybe losing a bit of their more actiony capability (obviously there are exceptions). And hell, I've looked at the hard mode, which is all "LOL no items" and junk, which just seems like derailing content and strategy options out of the game.
Sekiro needs an easy mode > Sekiro is based around Rock/Paper/Scissor counter mechanics. IDK how much simpler you need it. Its trial and error figuring out which thing counters which attack, but they're not exactly diverse (though we stepped up from Souls where you could just roll out of the current dimension and through every hit).
Easy has never ruined a game > I mean, generally no. I'd struggle to think of a case where it does outside of maybe outright cheat code stuff. Since most "Easy modes" amount to simply buffing your health/damage, it rarely will dispense with the gameplay altogether. As someone mentioned Bioshock up there, mayhaps Easy mode will give you more options in approaches (which is honestly a strenght), but it doesn't curtail your ability to engage with any of the mechanics beyond your desire to actually bother. Granted, there's always that subset that will take the simplest dullest road to victory (in Warframe we call them Inaros and Mesa mains)
Nothing to say on Cuphead, never played it.
FF7RE having its Easy mode, I mean, to my recollection, the difficulty setting when its been present in FF has literally allowed the game to play itself. I wouldn't call this current iteration a departure. And its probably a smart nod to their major target market, who are kind of rocking the 35+ age group and maybe losing a bit of their more actiony capability (obviously there are exceptions). And hell, I've looked at the hard mode, which is all "LOL no items" and junk, which just seems like derailing content and strategy options out of the game.
A difficulty select up front can circumvent the nature of the game and betray its design if that’s not what the developer intended. Miyazaki clearly stated he wanted everyone to start at ground zero and make their own way by playing the game. If people can bypass that discovery right from the get go then the kind of conversations had and player camaraderie are undeniably changed.
I feel like that shouldn’t be so difficult to understand, and this is devolving into argument purely for argument’s sake alone.
The link I posted earlier also talks about how Mario uses Stars for a more organic kind of difficulty, while still keeping the core game design universal.
Last edited:
Finally looked back and... I see the OP doesn't really address it. Fairly disappointing. Feel the original point is entirely disingenuous not only because it's pitting the views of two separate writers against each other, but also because they're not even opposed because the second guy is just complaining about implementation in this case, not about the concept in general.
- Status