Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Avnger]

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.

Thank God we have an arbitrator of Gamerness in out midst! I shudder to think what might have happened if we didn't have someone to tell us who belongs to the one true core Gamer group. Heaven forbid the casuals or those fake gamer girls were included!!1!11!

/s

Entirely out of sarcasm, I just realized that they wouldn't even be called "fake gamer girls" anymore. It would probably be "fake gamer females" which is just depressing...

 

[CriticalGaming]

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.

I mean that's why I like watching Jim Sterling's Jimpressions, or Yahtzee videos, or simply to play the game myself and post first impressions here. Because I always can rely on the first two people to simply report the yes or no answer of "is the game fun". Meanwhile i try to provide readers here with some basic insight as to how the mechanics work and whether or not they are good. As well as some impressions in regards to the story.

I also want to brush on the topic of difficulties, especially in regards to Dark Souls-like games.

You see too many journalists who write articles demanding easy-modes, as well as people who agree with said articles, don't provide the read with enough context to paint a clearer picture.

Difficulty modes are not always a simple menu-based selection. Sometimes difficulty is dynamic as is the case with some survival horror games that will crank up the health of zombies if you are kicking too much ass, but also turn down their health if you are getting your ass kicked. Other games offer difficulty selection by the sheer nature of playstyle. Dark Souls even has a such a difficulty option as playing a ranged character can provide a vastly easier experience than trying to be a rolling ninja, or even hiding behind a slab of wall and blocking every swing coming your way can be an easier mode depending on how you are as a player.

Why do you think there are players who struggle and players who don't? It's not always about player skill, sometimes it's simply about the struggling player tried playing the game in a way that didn't "click" with them and if they tried a different approach suddenly the game wouldn't seem so scary.

MMO's do this a lot in terms of the class selection. Have you ever had a guildmate who was a badass on one character but kind sucked as another? A ranged DPS who tops meters but when they show up as a Mage they can't beat the tanks? Play style and player mentality has a big effect on what makes a game difficult or easy.

The real answer to the question about difficulty is, there really isn't an answer. Players are all too different from one another, just like people are all different, and some things click for some players that don't click for others. It's not the game's responsibility to try to adapt to all possible players, but instead focus on a tight designed gameplay experience that developers would hope works for as many people as possible. And you have to be okay with shutting out potential players in order to keep the game design at a core level of quality.

No difficulty mode is going to make someone who can not mentally track all the different things in a RTS game somehow capable of gold-staring every mission. No difficulty mode is going to make an easily motion sick player capable of tolerating a crazy FPS. It's just the way entertainment works.

 

[BrawlMan]

There's one more thing about difficulty I want to add: this video between Woolie and Pat summed up perfectly. The only thing I disagree with them about is Evil Within 2 harder difficulty. I was able to get through most of the game with not much problem and without cheesing. It wasn't a walk in the park or anything, but I had fun on a harder difficulties.


The difficulties super easy and super hard are a reference to Alien Soldier. That game had only two difficulties.

 

[Dreiko]

This thread was made during a time I was shielding myself from any ffvii talk to avoid spoilers but I wanted to post in it and then forgot it was moved over here so I'll do it now.


I think the writer must have not mastered all of his special attacks on Aeris or may have missed the Magnify materia because these enemies he was struggling with were basic mobs you can wipe out in like 2 moves in normal mode. He also talks about "barely being able to fill the ATB gauge" which indicates he wasn't using the Guard ATB materia nor the First Strike materia. Dogs just do strike attacks so you can legit block until you get 2 atb bars and barely take any damage.


I'm writing this to indicate that this wasn't a case of a "hard fight", just one which requires basic understanding of the systems. I think because this fight doesn't have Cloud, people who played the game by over-using Cloud and didn't switch around to other party members enough (you can call that playing the game wrong if you will) were at a disadvantage because Cloud's regular attacks do actually do OK damage in punisher mode. As someone who absolutely loved the way Aeris plays, however, I was joyously firing my 2-atb lazors at people like nuts. I ended up using her the most during the Jenova fight as well. All in all, if you play the game properly, it's actually much easier than it is if you don't.

 

[Nick Calandra]

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.

Gonna self-promote for a second, because based on the readings of this thread, I think A LOT of you might really like our 3 Minute Review series. It's to the point game reviews without all the fluff and no point-scales.

 

[Dalisclock]

Gonna self-promote for a second, because based on the readings of this thread, I think A LOT of you might really like our 3 Minute Review series. It's to the point game reviews without all the fluff and no point-scales.

I really do appreciate the Escapist having video(or much of any) reviews again. I really missed that from the old days.

Also, Unskippable. Any plans to bring back unskippable?

 

[BrawlMan]

Gonna self-promote for a second, because based on the readings of this thread, I think A LOT of you might really like our 3 Minute Review series. It's to the point game reviews without all the fluff and no point-scales.

I should have mentioned this, but your 3 minute reviews usually don't bother me. They tend be fine.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Gonna self-promote for a second, because based on the readings of this thread, I think A LOT of you might really like our 3 Minute Review series. It's to the point game reviews without all the fluff and no point-scales.

I feel game reviews just like movie reviews require having a similar taste as the reviewer, it's too personal to just have a go-to site with probably 10s of reviewers. Streets of Rage 4 is actually a perfect game where a no-nonsense, to-the-point review works great as the game is simple fun and whatever entertainment the story provides is only a bonus. Whereas with say an RPG that probably half the reason for playing is the story along with several interconnected gameplay mechanics, a review requires someone that is basically on par with a movie reviewer for the story side while also knowing game systems in and out. And that "someone" really doesn't exist at say IGN or Gamespot. Using an Escapist example, Shamus Young is someone that delves into the little things rather well. It really ends up being a lot of little things that make you love your favorite games and all other manner of the arts. Hell, my favorite game from last-gen, Bayonetta, IGN doesn't even mention the mechanic, dodge offset, that makes the game great.

 

[Nick Calandra]

I really do appreciate the Escapist having video(or much of any) reviews again. I really missed that from the old days.

Also, Unskippable. Any plans to bring back unskippable?

Most of the old creators don't want to work with or be associated with The Escapist brand anymore because of what it became...even though there's a whole new set of people in charge and I've helped to even get Bob the rights back to the shows he created like Big Picture, ETTM etc.

A bit annoying, but understandable. Regardless, most of the actual "mainstream" games press industry has still written us off no matter what we do. Thankfully I have great relationships with developers and all that having done this so long, but yea, I wouldn't expect any old creators to want to associate with us.

 

[Dalisclock]

Most of the old creators don't want to work with or be associated with The Escapist brand anymore because of what it became...even though there's a whole new set of people in charge and I've helped to even get Bob the rights back to the shows he created like Big Picture, ETTM etc.

A bit annoying, but understandable. Regardless, most of the actual "mainstream" games press industry has still written us off no matter what we do. Thankfully I have great relationships with developers and all that having done this so long, but yea, I wouldn't expect any old creators to want to associate with us.

Sad to hear but understandable. I was here during the dark age and I can only imagine how it felt for the creators who lef(or were pushed?)t to go do their own things.

Thanks for the clarification though.

 

[Dreiko]

I mean that's why I like watching Jim Sterling's Jimpressions, or Yahtzee videos, or simply to play the game myself and post first impressions here. Because I always can rely on the first two people to simply report the yes or no answer of "is the game fun". Meanwhile i try to provide readers here with some basic insight as to how the mechanics work and whether or not they are good. As well as some impressions in regards to the story.

I also want to brush on the topic of difficulties, especially in regards to Dark Souls-like games.

You see too many journalists who write articles demanding easy-modes, as well as people who agree with said articles, don't provide the read with enough context to paint a clearer picture.

Difficulty modes are not always a simple menu-based selection. Sometimes difficulty is dynamic as is the case with some survival horror games that will crank up the health of zombies if you are kicking too much ass, but also turn down their health if you are getting your ass kicked. Other games offer difficulty selection by the sheer nature of playstyle. Dark Souls even has a such a difficulty option as playing a ranged character can provide a vastly easier experience than trying to be a rolling ninja, or even hiding behind a slab of wall and blocking every swing coming your way can be an easier mode depending on how you are as a player.

Why do you think there are players who struggle and players who don't? It's not always about player skill, sometimes it's simply about the struggling player tried playing the game in a way that didn't "click" with them and if they tried a different approach suddenly the game wouldn't seem so scary.

MMO's do this a lot in terms of the class selection. Have you ever had a guildmate who was a badass on one character but kind sucked as another? A ranged DPS who tops meters but when they show up as a Mage they can't beat the tanks? Play style and player mentality has a big effect on what makes a game difficult or easy.

The real answer to the question about difficulty is, there really isn't an answer. Players are all too different from one another, just like people are all different, and some things click for some players that don't click for others. It's not the game's responsibility to try to adapt to all possible players, but instead focus on a tight designed gameplay experience that developers would hope works for as many people as possible. And you have to be okay with shutting out potential players in order to keep the game design at a core level of quality.

No difficulty mode is going to make someone who can not mentally track all the different things in a RTS game somehow capable of gold-staring every mission. No difficulty mode is going to make an easily motion sick player capable of tolerating a crazy FPS. It's just the way entertainment works.

I think games just need to foster an understanding that a game is balanced around a normal mode so that the intended experience is one where you are actually able to beat the game in normal mode. Where anyone is.

Instead of saying a game is too hard in normal mode, what people need to be educated into getting out of failing to beat something in normal mode is that, no, the game isn't too hard, you're just bad at it and need to practice more.


It may be an old school mentality but it hasn't failed me yet and it isn't an issue of whether you're good or bad at games or hardcore or not hardcore or what have you. Everyone will struggle with something new. Super experienced people will figure out things much faster, sure, but it's not like they don't struggle too.

So now the issue becomes that this struggle period is too long or too unfun for some people that either they stop or feel like they want another difficulty. They give up basically. I don't see how that's the game's fault. I see this as these people's fault for being weak-willed or not patient enough. Chess isn't "wrong" because if someone is unwilling to memorize how all the pieces work will end up losing over and over to moves they didn't see coming.


Just because games are entertainment it doesn't mean you can do anything you want without ruining or losing some fundamental aspect that makes them worthwhile. And no, claiming you don't care about this aspect is just calling sour grapes. You are incapable of ascertaining whether you care or not until after you already have experienced it by which point an easy mode is no longer necessary.


Ultimately, games just need to be fun win or lose. This is why I love fighting games. There's this thing called a "good match" where you feel like you did well and your foe did well and you were having interesting exchanges and reads all throughout so by the end of it who actually wins or loses feels kinda irrelevant since the match was so good than either person winning would be understandable and both players feel satisfied after it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Chess isn't "wrong" because if someone is unwilling to memorize how all the pieces work will end up losing over and over to moves they didn't see coming.

Chess is "wrong" because it's a bad game that's just memorization.

 

[Dalisclock]

So now the issue becomes that this struggle period is too long or too unfun for some people that either they stop or feel like they want another difficulty. They give up basically. I don't see how that's the game's fault. I see this as these people's fault for being weak-willed or not patient enough.

I assure you it can totally to be the games fault. There's a reason the following terms exist "Fake dfficulty", "Luck Based Mission", "Check Point Starvation", "Camera Screw", "Unwinnable by design/mistake". There are plenty of games that are either badly designed or have poorly designed components, period. This isn't a matter of "The player just didn't want it enough", it's a matter of the game designers dropped the ball and just a poor job, for whatever reason. Especially games where it rarely feels like you're having fun, but rather fighting and hoping you get to the fun part. I don't see how this is even in dispute.

I've played games where you can screw yourself over, making the game unwinnable and not know about it for several hours, essentially creating a "Walking dead" scenario for your game. You're unable to win and have no choice but to reload a much earlier save(if you have one) but you won't know it until much later when you realize you did or failed to do something at an earlier time and no, you can't go back and fix it at this point.

This isn't "git gud". It's straight up bullshit design and the devs should feel bad.

 

[BrawlMan]

I assure you it can totally to be the games fault. There's a reason the following terms exist "Fake dfficulty", "Luck Based Mission", "Check Point Starvation", "Camera Screw", "Unwinnable by design/mistake". There are plenty of games that are either badly designed or have poorly designed components, period. This isn't a matter of "The player just didn't want it enough", it's a matter of the game designers dropped the ball and just a poor job, for whatever reason. I don't see how this is even in dispute.

I've played games where you can screw yourself over, making the game unwinnable and not know about it for several hours, essentially creating a "Walking dead" scenario for your game. You're unable to win and have no choice but to reload a much earlier save(if you have one) but you won't know it until much later when you realize you did or failed to do something at an earlier time and no, you can't go back and fix it at this point.

This isn't "git gud". It's straight up bullshit design and the devs should feel bad.

Thank you. I was going to respond to @Dreiko, but you took the words out of my mouth. There are plenty of games I've played, love or hate, that has bullshit design. No amount of "git gud" can solve that. Especially when mechanics were poorly design or not properly tested. Everyone has their own threshold or skill and there is nothing wrong with that. If person is not having fun for various reasons that are reasonable and understandable, then there is nothing wrong with that. If they want to make things easier or more difficult for themselves, so be it. I don't play games all the time to get my ass kicked. Sometimes I play something to chill out or stress relief.

 

[Dreiko]

OK so, you guys are referring to things that don't really resolve themselves even with an easy mode though. Which is kinda apples and oranges.


There's "the design of the game is flawed so it's impossible for skill to matter and it's an issue of luck or just mindlessly trying enough times" and then there's the type of thing I was actually describing which is a situation where you are only failing because you aren't grasping the systems and were relying on crutches carrying you out of laziness and you never tried to move past that.

An easy mode isn't gonna somehow rescue you out of a locked out state where you've screwed yourself and can't move forward so clearly that's a separate subject entirely basically. Any game with that issue doesn't need to adjust it's DIFFICULTY, but it's DESIGN. The fact that design can, if badly implemented, result in an unwinnable situation isn't a game difficulty issue but a more fundamental game MECHANICS issue.

You could say other games have issues with their mechanics which manifest themselves in being difficult, such as for example fighting games of olden times with 1 frame (1/60th of a second timing) links but the kinds of things you're talking about are more like logic issues or lack of foresight and less that type of thing as well.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

For some perspective on SoulsBorne games in particular regarding this subject, Nameless King is largely considered one of the toughest bosses in any of the games. I just beat him last night myself, and looked up his trophy info out of curiosity.

Spoiler: Results?

54.74% of players registered on psnprofiles.com have defeated him.
Furthermore, 36.3% of players overall have as well. So, over a third of all PS4 players who’ve played the game have beaten one of the toughest bosses in the series.

This is the case for most of these games too. Pretty impressive considering they’ve never had difficulty menus. For reference it’s also about 14% more than players who’ve completed the base story of Red Dead: Redemption 2, not counting the epilogues.

 

[SilentPony]

For some perspective on SoulsBorne games in particular regarding this subject, Nameless King is largely considered one of the toughest bosses in any of the games. I just beat him last night myself, and looked up his trophy info out of curiosity.

Spoiler: Results?

54.74% of players registered on psnprofiles.com have defeated him.
Furthermore, 36.3% of players overall have as well. So, over a third of all PS4 players who’ve played the game have beaten one of the toughest bosses in the series.

This is the case for most of these games too. Pretty impressive considering they’ve never had difficulty menus. For reference it’s also about 14% more than players who’ve completed the base story of Red Dead: Redemption 2, not counting the epilogues.

To be fair according to that same site only 68% of PS4 players defeated Father Gascoigne in Bloodborne and he's the first mandatory boss, which is weird because more people have beaten the Blood Starved Beast, 72%, than have beaten the boss that lets you get to the BSB.

So those numbers are all over the place.

 

[Houseman]

To be fair according to that same site only 68% of PS4 players defeated Father Gascoigne in Bloodborne and he's the first mandatory boss, which is weird because more people have beaten the Blood Starved Beast, 72%, than have beaten the boss that lets you get to the BSB.

So those numbers are all over the place.

I'm seeing 61% for the blood-starved beast

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I'm seeing 61% for the blood-starved beast
View attachment 99

Yup, here's %'s of each for PSN Profiles users and PSN accounts respectively -

 

[dscross]

In a way, I don't know if I see the point in game journalists anymore. You can get so many opinions from actual gamers on YouTube that they are kind of obsolete. No idea why people continue to read and watch their stuff. I guess they are trying to appeal to very casual gamers that don't want to do the research and aren't interested in a game that plays like a challenge and just want some easy entertainment.