I don't, actually. I just didn't want you to misquote me. You claimed I said X, when I really said Y. That's all I wanted to clear up.
So we are in agreement, yes? I didn't say what you thought I said?
Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
- Status
So we are in agreement, yes? I didn't say what you thought I said?
What?! Now only harder difficulties are the intended way to play something? You do realize if Bioshock released with no difficulty settings like Dark Souls, it would not be Survivor mode or Hard. Difficulty settings are literally now, it seems, the only way to play these games as "intended". You are arguing against difficulty settings, yet because of said "not allowed" difficulty settings you are actually allowed to play as intended. You're not making sense whatsoever.
MGS3, you can literally run through levels ala Dark Souls even on the hardest difficulty settings, you can bypass pretty much all the mechanics if you want. Witcher 3 is broken by 2 of the 5 signs you literally start the game with. CDPR are pretty bad at designing RPG systems (yet people for some reason call Witcher 3 the GOAT of video games). How can you as a game designer ever think that being able to put up a magic shield, block all damage from any one hit, then reapply it right away is good design? How'd that even ever make it on paper? The second it was muttered out of someone's mouth, somebody should've been like "NOPE". Same thing with axii; how is constantly stunning an enemy over and over again as long as you want a good idea? Does CDPR not know how powerful CC abilities are? It's not like CC is some new concept for RPGs or anything and tons of other games haven't figured out that having enemies build immunity over time to such effects is how you balance that shit. Lastly, Witcher 3's combat just sucks anyway, it's not fun, it's some mish-mash of Souls and Arkham combat that's designed for fighting humanoid creatures instead of the monsters the title character is actually known for hunting. Less time spent with it's bad combat and bad RPG systems, the better the game is.
It shouldn't be so hard to understand that say the game is developed for a 5/10 difficulty, it is only a 5/10 difficulty for 5/10 players. If a player is say 3/10 in skill, the 5/10 difficulty is not the same challenge, it might as well be them playing 7/10 difficult game. Exact opposite for players that are higher skilled. I don't share near the same experience as most that played Dark Souls, I wouldn't be sharing camaraderie with our similar (or exactly the same as you'd like to think it is) experiences because they weren't similar. That's why some kids in school struggle getting through class while others are bored to death and ace all the tests. The teacher is literally teaching exactly the same material (aka same difficulty level) to all the kids; for some it's really hard, for others it's really easy.
From linked article about Mario's star system: "Allowing players to pick the challenges they find most appealing is both interesting for the player to do and accessible."
How is that not literally the definition of difficulty levels? A platformer isn't made easier or harder by changing combat numbers that's why Mario has the stars, Celeste has assist mode, etc.
No, I'm just saying that, in general, the "easier" the mode, the less mechanics you have to use. The harder the mode, the more mechanics you have to use. I would think that just about any game would be able to illustrate that (as long as the game actually HAS mechanics to use besides shoot the enemy (looking at you, CoD)) I'm sorry, I didn't mean to pull a fast one on you, or anything.
Specifically, I'm arguing that easier difficulties have a tendency of not being the intended experience and may cause people to have a worse opinion of the game.
I don't doubt that, but I do doubt that someone new to the game would be able to do that. Being able to do that requires lots of memorization, as in the case of every game that is sped-run. I think this would be easier to discuss if we could leave out speed-runners. Can we focus on those who are playing the game "normally"? i.e: No speedrunners or people who have memorized every aspect of the game.
And okay, you don't like Witcher 3. Maybe it is too broken to provide a good example. Like I said above, I would think that just about any game with difficulty levels (and mechanics) should demonstrate the point. Let's look at (...searches steam library) Dying Light. On easier difficulties, you can just tank damage and plow through zombies. On the hardest difficulty, you really want to use the environment and focus on parkour-ing AWAY from the zombies because fighting is something you generally want to avoid. You have to prepare and craft diversions/throwing weapons/grenades.
For some reason, I can't include this post in the post above. Some new character limit perhaps?
"a well-balanced RPG game doesn't need difficulty levels"
That's still not what I said. I said that difficulty levels aren't necessarily the solution to over-leveling (in RPG games). I didn't say that a well-balanced RPG doesn't need difficulty levels. I said that the solution to the problem of over-leveling should come from the game being well-designed. You CAN have a well-designed RPG WITHOUT overleveling problems AND ALSO include difficulty levels for reasons that are unrelated to solving the overleveling problem.
Now that I think about it, Divinity, Original Sin was a good example of a well-designed RPG that didn't have an overleveling problem and also had difficulty levels. It limited the total amount of world XP like @Secondhand Revenant suggested in post #181, and it was virtually impossible to win fights in areas that you weren't supposed to be in yet, so you were guided down a specific path the entire game. Even if you did all the side-quests, every battle felt like a life-or-death challenge. I never, at any point, felt over-leveled. That's what I remember about it, at least.
If we assume the context to be RPG games, then the quote (your quote) now becomes:
"a well-balanced RPG game doesn't need difficulty levels"
That's still not what I said. I said that difficulty levels aren't necessarily the solution to over-leveling (in RPG games). I didn't say that a well-balanced RPG doesn't need difficulty levels. I said that the solution to the problem of over-leveling should come from the game being well-designed. You CAN have a well-designed RPG WITHOUT overleveling problems AND ALSO include difficulty levels for reasons that are unrelated to solving the overleveling problem.
Now that I think about it, Divinity, Original Sin was a good example of a well-designed RPG that didn't have an overleveling problem and also had difficulty levels. It limited the total amount of world XP like @Secondhand Revenant suggested in post #181, and it was virtually impossible to win fights in areas that you weren't supposed to be in yet, so you were guided down a specific path the entire game. Even if you did all the side-quests, every battle felt like a life-or-death challenge. I never, at any point, felt over-leveled. That's what I remember about it, at least.
I understand there 1/10-10/10 levels of players, but what’s to say even a difficulty menu covers all of them? Usually there are 3-5 options available, which might only end up covering around half of the potential players.
The grade school analogy doesn’t work in favor of a difficulty select either. Kids don’t get to pick their curriculums for a specific grade. Everyone in that grade gets the same book, lessons, test, etc. no matter what their “skill level” is. If they have issues then that’s where tutoring comes into play, which would be the equivalent of Youtube “how to defeat x boss” videos or Wikidots.
One reason people still talk about Souls in terms of difficulty is because new players are still finding ways of adjusting the game to fit their own difficulty, again, simply by playing the game like the developer intended. This is the main point I’m trying to make here.
The stars in Mario are certainly “the definition of difficulty levels” but yet again, it’s doing so within the game design itself, eschewing the need for picking from a list of predetermined options from a menu.
Going by a post in the beta thread, sounds like there is a 1000 word(?) limit. Ick.
Were you playing the Enhanced Edition? The website says "Existing encounters have been re-balanced to provide a better experience in all zones, and upgraded AI means your enemies will figure out your tactics and work against them!" and also "Balancing changes have made mid and late-game combat more dynamic and engaging."
You can also argue that the more imminent death is, the less the player will experiment and will end up finding that optimally efficient yet boring strategy. I gave 2 games where that is the case. Vanquish, the harder the game is, the less likely the player is to utilize the game's mechanics. XCOM is the same as well, play on the higher/highest difficulty and players will be playing less and less as the developer intended the game to be played. Every player is different, the harder difficulty will get some players to use more mechanics while other players will basically "turtle" through using less mechanics. Same with easier difficulties, some will try more things out, others will just say use the tranq gun in MGS3. There isn't any one way to get people to play the game as the developer intends the game to be played and the player community may find an even better intended way to play than the developer ever imagined. Do you think Arkane Studios intended Dishonored to be played the way StealthGamerBR plays it? And even if they did, forcing people to play like that would make the game extremely niche.
I'm not all at saying difficulty levels are perfect but they definitely help and they are easy to implement in most games (since most games derive their difficulty from combat). Covering half the players is better than covering say a quarter without any difficulty levels. The perfect solution, if there even is one, would take up probably more resources than it's worth. Games like RE4 and God Hand have dynamic difficulties based how good/bad the player is doing, that takes a lot more effort and resources than basic difficulty options. That's why I also said awhile back to you if more games didn't focus on combat, you'd be seeing more interesting and organic options as far as difficulty goes like Mario's stars. Though even Super Mario Maker levels have to be separated by "difficulty levels" as you won't find kids being able to play Super Expert levels or Kaizo levels.
The grade school analogy was an analogy for basically Dark Souls, not difficulty levels. Yes, kids don't get to pick the curriculum and they're taught in the same exact way by the same teacher. Some do better, some do worse. Some will find class such and such hard while others will find the class easy. If you wanna extend to analogy to adding in difficulty levels, that would be like Honors (when I went to high school) or Advanced Placement classes.
Or could it be the game's fault? Perhaps there's some design flaw in the game that makes certain mechanics unviable on harder difficulties?
I think human nature is to find that "optimally efficient yet boring strategy", no matter what the difficulty is. A well-designed game with well-designed difficulty will force the player to change it up every so often, and will force the player to use the mechanics to find a strategy that works. For example, heavily-armored enemies that force you to hit them from behind, so the strategy that works for the normal enemies doesn't work.
I agree with both of these things. But I still also believe that easier difficulties tend towards more disappointing, unintended, experiences.
The fact XCOM has perma-death and the hardest mode is called Impossible Ironman (no ability to save and reload a mistake) obviously makes one play as careful as possible. I feel the ability to move around the level at your own speed trying to find the enemy allows for the optimal playstyle. The new Chimera Squad game releasing in a few days seems to have fixed that design flaw with the breach mechanic where the squad breaches a building getting straight to the combat. Whereas XCOM 2 tried to fix it with only giving players a certain amount of turns to complete the scenario, which was poor way to fix it. I feel Souls has a similar design issue with having too many "gotcha or fuck you" deaths to where I was like "So you wanna play that game? I'll fucking play that game!" finding all the exploits and cheapness because the game was being cheap to me so I'll be cheap to it. Not to mention, tons of people said on forums just beating the game is a massive challenge. Once you start playing in a manner where every decision you make is to not die, it's a super easy game.
Though XCOM has no actual player execution skill required so it's different from most games. And gaining execution skill requires practice, you can't force mastering the game on new players. Bayonetta, in my opinion, is best played on the hardest difficulty that removes witch-time from the game because that forces you to learn the dodge offset mechanic. However, you can't start players on that difficulty because just getting the skill of the button presses down and getting comfortable with it takes time and practice. Going through the game's difficulties actually ends up being perfect training for the dodge offset which gives you a few enemies here and there along with a repeating boss where you can't witch-time them so it gets you to at least think of trying the dodge offset. You can brute force / get lucky on those few fights to beat the game on Normal and see it to the end. And if you really like the game, playing it on Hard give you a bunch more fights with enemies immune to witch time to where if you want any kind of efficiency in winning fights, you're going to have to learn to dodge offset at least with the most basic combo. Then, witch-time is completely removed from the highest difficulty. Going through the difficulties prepares you to get better, but you can't just ask players to start there. Bayonetta was my 1st spectacle fighter that I played and loved it.
Every player coming in has different skill levels and prior game experience and different starting points are needed.
I don't disagree. This is like what I said in post 188. In a perfect world, players would start on easy and ramp up the difficulty to get more and more out of the game. However, not everybody plays like this. Game Journalists, in particular, don't have time to do that, so whatever difficulty they play the game on is what they base their review on.
So I suppose the question becomes: what's the lesser evil? Including difficulty modes and allowing games journalists and others to "misuse" those modes instead of using them as tutorials? Or forcing people to conform to the game's difficulty in their own way a la Dark Souls and possibly leaving out those who can't invest the time?
People are going to play they way the want to play regardless so I don't see why difficulty levels wouldn't be the lesser evil. I just looked up IGN and GameSpot's review of Bayonetta and neither review even mentions the most important mechanic in the game, the dodge offset. On the flipside, Dark Souls was misrepresented to me as well from reviews and the community itself. You can't blame game reviewers because you can't hold them to a standard that they must master the game and know everything about it before posting a review, that's just not feasible for anyone regardless of how hardcore a gamer they are. The best way to way to "vet" a game is just watch gameplay of it IMO. Devs usually put out lengthy unedited walkthroughs of an early section or a well-done video going over all the mechanics. For some reason, everyone claimed Watch Dogs was a disappointed but even the 1st walkthroughs (that were lies apparently) showed the exact gameplay of the final game, including missions that were in the released game. I got exactly the game I expected, what the hell was everyone else expecting the game to be? Lastly, the game has to be enjoyable without mastering the game because what percentage of games does the average person master? There's only those select few games I love that I dedicate the time to master.
True. I also think they shouldn't be claiming that games are too hard and that they need an easy mode. They should be competent enough not to need such a mode. They should be competent enough to get past the Cuphead tutorial and competent enough to not be shooting the floor half the time in DOOM.
If they aren't even competent at playing video games, they should be replaced by someone who is.
If they can't even manage that, then they shouldn't even be in business.
Some would say that the journey to mastery is what's enjoyable. Or rather, the developer intends for the process to be enjoyable. Whether or not the player finds it enjoyable is a separate matter.
I don't like fighting games for instance, because in order to be reasonably good at them you have to spend hours memorizing combos. I don't find that fun. I will, however, spend hours fighting the same boss in a Souls game
Except some people want reviews that discuss more the story, themes, and characters than gameplay, which some reviewers clearly specialize in.
In the rare event I read a review, I want to know if the game is simply enjoyable. Not if it was challenging enough to fit some unknown criteria. Don't fall into the ideal that everybody who plays games does so for a challenge or to best something.
I don't really put any faith in reviewers except a small handful on Youtube and like half of them don't even do reviewers regularly. Sadly, I can find out more about a game from a Yahtzee or Dunkey video than a professional review. Just about every game that I've played that's gotten reviews in the mid-to-upper 90s are games that I probably wouldn't even rate as 5/10. I got better takes on games way back in the EGM days where 3 reviewers would give their own take on the game in only a couple paragraphs, you actually got to see differing opinions on a game.
You know what, no, I take that back. I think there is a click-based economy. Clickbait articles about politics and deliberately antagonizing articles like "gamers are sexist manbabies!" are assuredly going to get more clicks than an in-depth article designed to appeal to core gamers.
Core gamers are in the minority (as we have been since forever), and it's difficult to find journalists that give us what we want. Kotaku, Polygon, Gamespot, IGN, etc, are not what we want.
Amen. I can't remember the last time I intentionally read something from one of the big journo sites. If a game is good, I'll hear about it through the grapevine.
Last edited:
- Status