Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Breywood]

You need it so much if you think i give a fuck about your retarded argument the rebuttals have been stated and you refuse to take any of that on. So keep on driving this conversation round in circles. How do you feel saying that pidgin is smarter and has a longer attention span than you?

You're so right. Deus Ex wasn't weak for its voice acting and bland levels. It was weak because it had a difficulty selector! How could I not see that before!

Excuse me while I go have a good cr... Oh look! A pigeon!



EDIT: This was replied to before its finished state. Sorry folks.

 

[anthony87]

Huh, I come back after a few days and JustanotherGamer is still strawmanning it up like a boss. I think the question on everyones mind now though is "Will we hit 1000 posts"? I believe we just might!

 

[anthony87]

Huh, I come back after a few days and JustanotherGamer is still strawmanning it up like a boss. I think the question on everyones mind now though is "Will we hit 1000 posts"? I believe we just might!

lol says the guy who adds nothing to any thread he posts in. well done well done. i hardly ever post in any sites but this argument that all games shouldn't have any content behind barriers seems rather retarded to me.

also rofl after a few days looks at post history yep a few days huh....

I agree about the "no barrier" thing. Who was saying that?

And yeah...my last post in this thread was like five days ago. Hence "a few days".

 

[grumbel]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/I_ctJqjlrHA

Try to understand the science man at 3:00

If you think that supports your argument: It does not, it does exactly the opposite. The whole point of going all out easy-mode (including walkthroughs, god-mode, level skip, etc.) is that you have to do nothing to get everything. All those random level ups that serve to provide the conditioning to keep you playing are completely meaningless in a proper easy-mode, as you already have them all or can unlock them straight from a menu or at least with ease. What good is a new armor when you are already invincible anyway? In a proper all out easy-mode the only thing that would keep you playing is the actual content of the game, the world, the story and the gameplay, not the random loot drops and level ups.

 

[Breywood]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/I_ctJqjlrHA

Try to understand the science man at 3:00

If you think that supports your argument: It does not, it does exactly the opposite. The whole point of going all out easy-mode (including walkthroughs, god-mode, level skip, etc.) is that you have to do nothing to get everything. All those random level ups that serve to provide the conditioning to keep you playing are completely meaningless in a proper easy-mode, as you already have them all or can unlock them straight from a menu or at least with ease. What good is a new armor when you are already invincible anyway? In a proper all out easy-mode the only thing that would keep you playing is the actual content of the game, the world, the story and the gameplay, not the random loot drops and level ups.

People play hardcore in Minecraft, select "realistic" in Deus Ex, "impossible" difficulty in Civilization or get Nightmare mode in Quake. And just because the cheats are there doesn't mean that you have to use them. I really do not get why people are so obsessed with how someone else plays the game. Especially when you can have your own "factory default" difficulty setting made for you the way the devs intended.

This is worse than being pissed on by dueling addicts because I still don't like PvP in Diablo II.

 

[chikusho]

Nobody feels threatened by the lack of easy-mode, as those people that want one will simply not buy the game.

If it really was that simple, this thread wouldn't exist.

The problem however is that lack of easy-mode leads to lack of sales and lack of sales leads to the introduction about easy-mode in one form or another. The easy-mode isn't being talked about because Dark Souls players want it, but because the developer sees a potential for a wider audience by making the game more accessible.

Unless the game caters to a niche group of players that want the main design philosophy to remain intact. Changing that philosophy risks alienating the people who made Demons and Dark Souls a success, and might lead to decreased sales.

Also why so much complaining about easy-mode? Why is nobody complaining about NewGame+? Why is it ok to change difficulty in one direction, but not into the other? What would be wrong with having a NewGame-?

Because once you've mastered the core mechanics of the game, you have the option to extend replayability by testing your skills and your character build at a more demanding difficulty. The environment poses less of a threat when you know where the traps are and what to look out for.

Nothing wrong with caution, even trial-and-error is ok. Fighting the same enemies that you have already beaten over and over again is however a fault in game design and not really tolerable when a game is meant to attract a wider audience.

Dark Souls has a huge variety of enemies and enemy types, so I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Also, the game is not meant to attract a wider audience.

 

[infinity_turtles]

People play hardcore in Minecraft, select "realistic" in Deus Ex, "impossible" difficulty in Civilization or get Nightmare mode in Quake. And just because the cheats are there doesn't mean that you have to use them. I really do not get why people are so obsessed with how someone else plays the game. Especially when you can have your own "factory default" difficulty setting made for you the way the devs intended.

I'm a bit too lazy to re-type the several post explanation I gave someone a few pages back, but I don't care how anyone else plays. To me Easy and Hard mode are options in a game as simple as the choice between the starting broken weapon that's practically useless and the best weapon in the game. Unless I'm already invested in a games challenge already by way of playing it through already, having done my best to win wand still been challenged, choosing the clearly inferior tactical option of Hard Mode makes me not care about losing. That choice is so much more important to any loss I have the any other choice I make while playing, and I would know that when I choose it at the beginning of the game. Frankly, I'd have to be stupid to make that choice. And if I don't care about losing, I can't enjoy winning.

So basically it comes down to the fact that I can't enjoy the challenge of a game if there's an easy mode ever, unless that easy mode manages to still be a challenge which kind of defeats the purpose of an easy mode. Knowing it's an option means I know I made a stupid tactical decision which makes every loss meaningless, which in turn makes every victory meaningless. And while most people may not feel this way, Dark Souls is a game that I can enjoy the challenge of, that has a dedicated fanbase and has sold pretty damn well. Why the hell do you need to change it to something that I can't enjoy to include other people who have damn near every other game in existence? Are you really so selfish that you need every game doing things your way and can't let those who enjoy games a different way have a few that do things the way they like?

 

[oskalaboska]

[quote="Breywood"

I really do not get why people are so obsessed with how someone else plays the game. Especially when you can have your own "factory default" difficulty setting made for you the way the devs intended.

This is worse than being pissed on by dueling addicts because I still don't like PvP in Diablo II.[/quote]

It's not so much that I am obsessed by how good a person plays a game, it's more that I hate people who complain that a game is too hard and then you have Capcom re-releasing a dumb down DMC3 to appease the fans (which I thought the people who went out an paid the additional 60 for a game they already own was stupid).

The issue I have is how games are dumb down to a point which I find insulting. To play the third part in a series and have it tell me that moving my joystick forward moves my character, to have a game "remind" me how to drive a car and put flashing glowing arrows on screen when I'm not going to my next story mission, or find out that the only difference between normal, hard, or 'coming at me with no lube' is the number of bullets I have to put in an enemy's head.

The problem most of the 'elitist' I know have is that games we would like made are passed up/dumbed down for a group that isn't us. For many of us, Dark Souls is our Great White Hope. Even those who have never played and don't plan on doing so, see that game's no-nonsense, apologetically difficult gameplay that somewhere a game developer is willing to give us a game that doesn't spoonfeed us weapons and health backs or hold our hands.

And as for the argument that casual gamers help increase sales, that's bull. A causal gamer is more apt to buy a decent $10 game than a AAA $60. I know of 4 IPs that EA owns that were to come out tomorrow, I might have to drop my boycott and give them my $200.

Also, I'm confused at why a person would pay $40-$60 for a game for its scenery or story. Just go to the movies or to a nearby park.

 

[Breywood]

I'm a bit too lazy to re-type the several post explanation I gave someone a few pages back, but I don't care how anyone else plays. To me Easy and Hard mode are options in a game as simple as the choice between the starting broken weapon that's practically useless and the best weapon in the game. Unless I'm already invested in a games challenge already by way of playing it through already, having done my best to win wand still been challenged, choosing the clearly inferior tactical option of Hard Mode makes me not care about losing. That choice is so much more important to any loss I have the any other choice I make while playing, and I would know that when I choose it at the beginning of the game. Frankly, I'd have to be stupid to make that choice. And if I don't care about losing, I can't enjoy winning. So basically it comes down to the fact that I can't enjoy the challenge of a game if there's an easy mode ever, unless that easy mode manages to still be a challenge which kind of defeats the purpose of an easy mode. Knowing it's an option means I know I made a stupid tactical decision which makes every loss meaningless, which in turn makes every victory meaningless. And while most people may not feel this way, Dark Souls is a game that I can enjoy the challenge of, that has a dedicated fanbase and has sold pretty damn well. Why the hell do you need to change it to something that I can't enjoy to include other people who have damn near every other game in existence?

I see you answered my question, and the tone is appreciated. But the looks of awe from being able to rightly claim "I played it the way the devs intended" isn't good enough? You're too weak to resist the temptation to avoid that challenge? If I even cared about playing Dark Souls, I'd definitely ask for the broken sword. Maybe not the first time, but I'd definitely take that challenge.

Are you really so selfish that you need every game doing things your way and can't let those who enjoy games a different way have a few that do things the way they like?

I have three words for you: Big. Shiny. Mirror.

It is not a stupid tactical decision. It's called "rising to the occasion."

 

[sagitel]

guess its too hard for them to make these optional? like auto aiming. they already have it in game so make it fucking optional! add a difficulty selector. add modes! like hardcore mode or normal mode. if players are that fucking stupid to feel bad for changing the fucking difficulty if its too hard or too easy they dont deserve to moan.if the company is so fucking stupid to not add modes and difficulty settings they dont deserve their games to be sold.

its so easy to make these options work!in the hardcore mode you have 50% of the original health and enemies are 300% stronger. with ammo and stuff hard to find.and less checkpoints.

i seriously cant see the reason people are all so bat shit crazy about this. why you always make something more complicated than it really is?

 

[evilneko]

I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

Not sure if serious...or just elitist.

I still can't find a problem with elitism but...

There was nothing elitist in his post.It was anti-entitlement.I still can't find a problem with that either.
(feeling entitled)

If you don't think you have to earn content in a game based on some measure of skill "example:win to progress" why even try an input-converts-to-content system of entertainment?Because at some point,the cost(input) might be out of your reach.That is the risk one takes in this medium.And it is okay for that.Niche can create distinct experiences for those who like that particular thing.Even if that thing happens to be some dreaded elitism.

I really think you should watch this episode again.

 

[immortalfrieza]

i really don't understand why people want to play a game they don't like. How are any of those games you listed anything like dark souls??? stop talking the same shit again and again.

Exactly, this is the reason I haven't been responding to this thread that much lately, it's because I'm getting tired of the pro easy moders not listening, that, and I've already said just about everything that needs to be said. All they do is say the same tired arguments over and over (which largely all boil down to either: It doesn't affect you so shut up, you're just being elitist, or I deserve to see everything in a game just because I bought it) and when their arguments are soundly defeated by people like us time and time again they just dismiss our side's arguments because they just don't want to admit the fact that their already beaten and continue posting the same arguments some more. I haven't read an original not to mention valid argument for the addition of easy mode in the Souls or any other game series for that matter for 10 page now.

And as for the argument that casual gamers help increase sales, that's bull. A causal gamer is more apt to buy a decent $10 game than a AAA $60. I know of 4 IPs that EA owns that were to come out tomorrow, I might have to drop my boycott and give them my $200.

Exactly, casuals by definition will buy up ANYTHING, they don't care about the quality of the game, they don't care about the game series, they don't care about what makes video games worth playing, and they don't care about where video games came from. Casuals are the reason why the overall quality of video games and the industry itself has been going down the tubes the last decade, they're the reason why companies like EA still exist and haven't collapsed under they're own practices that blatantly screw over their customers, and they're the reason why the hardcore crowd has been starving for entertainment the last few years.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I have three words for you: Big. Shiny. Mirror.

Actually, that part of my post was intended to act like a big shiny mirror for those calling people who don't want an easy mode selfish. With the added bonus that they're the ones trying to change the few games that cater towards a niche audience.

I see you answered my question, and the tone is appreciated. But the looks of awe from being able to rightly claim "I played it the way the devs intended" isn't good enough? You're too weak to resist the temptation to avoid that challenge? If I even cared about playing Dark Souls, I'd definitely ask for the broken sword. Maybe not the first time, but I'd definitely take that challenge.



It is not a stupid tactical decision. It's called "rising to the occasion."

I don't care what people think of my ability to beat a hard game. The "looks of awe" mean nothing to me. What I care about is the experience I have with the game, which changes if I make a decision at the beginning of the game that i know is going to make it more difficult for me to beat the game. It's the equivalent of trying to win a race and deciding that yes I'll tie a ball&chain to my leg. So yes, from my perspective it is a stupid tactical decision and will never be anything but. Easy Mode is quite literally a static debuff against all my enemies. The only effect it has is tactical in nature. I frankly don't really understand how anyone can see it as anything but a tactical decision, but that's okay, I don't need to understand. It just means that games that cater to the mindset of people I don't understand aren't for me. And that's okay as long as said people aren't screaming for the extremely few games that cater towards my mindset to change in a way that accommodates them but makes me unable to enjoy their challenge. But people are screaming that they want the games to change in away that makes me unable to enjoy their challenge. People enjoy different things, and because most other people don't enjoy the same thing as me, I'm being told it's a win-win scenario for that thing to not exist and I'm a selfish prick for wanting it to.

 

[chikusho]

I see you answered my question, and the tone is appreciated. But the looks of awe from being able to rightly claim "I played it the way the devs intended" isn't good enough? You're too weak to resist the temptation to avoid that challenge? If I even cared about playing Dark Souls, I'd definitely ask for the broken sword. Maybe not the first time, but I'd definitely take that challenge.

It has never been about being able to rightly claim anything. You can play Dark Souls however you want to within the tools that you've been provided. But there's no reason at all for developers to compromise core mechanics just so that some people can play in ways that go against the core philosophy of the work.
To include features and modes that go against that core cheapens the product and makes it a playground and toybox instead a unique experience, which is what should be prioritized at every turn, in my opinion.
If you're not interested in having the experience they want to provide, no part of the design should affect you in the slightest.

 

[FriedRicer]

I agree with Jim. Why should I be stopped from accessing some portion of the content because I can't get past one particular encounter?

Why Not? I'll tell you, it's because you don't deserve to, that's why. Every challenge in every video game ever made is a wall to keep you from moving forward, and beating those challenges allow you to bypass that wall. Video games are a medium in which the right to access content has to be earned, it is not just given to you, regardless of the difficulty, and if you don't like that, then video games are not for you.

Not sure if serious...or just elitist.

I still can't find a problem with elitism but...

There was nothing elitist in his post.It was anti-entitlement.I still can't find a problem with that either.
(feeling entitled)

If you don't think you have to earn content in a game based on some measure of skill "example:win to progress" why even try an input-converts-to-content system of entertainment?Because at some point,the cost(input) might be out of your reach.That is the risk one takes in this medium.And it is okay for that.Niche can create distinct experiences for those who like that particular thing.Even if that thing happens to be some dreaded elitism.

I really think you should watch this episode again.

I saw it,but what have I missed?