Next week in "Problems that are only Problems to a Very Small Minority of Privileged People", Jim addresses problems that are only problems to a very small minority of privileged people.
Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would agree with you...except for three things that really poke holes in your argument.Mortrialus said:
You say that gaining the knowledge is quite literally the game. From what I understand, that knowledge is gained through trial and error if you don't already have it, which still does not take away from the play experience.
You compared this by saying it's similar to a challenging philosophy book...except that one is designed to educate or enlighten, and the other is designed to be entertainment, and I don't feel that it's fair to say that one should be wholly invested in a product to get the full entertainment value it can provide. Some people do not have that much time to a commit to a game and should not be punished in order to experience it all. Especially with the number of new titles that are released these days. Yes, Dark Souls is meant to be a time invested and challenging game, and that's fine. However, that doesn't make a simpler version of it for those whom are unable to invest a bad thing for it. This comparison is rather weak in my honest opinion.
As well, it's not our place to deside whether or not a game should not have the option to play it in a different mode. If someone else gets a different experience than you, it does not make it a bad one. I personally always played Elder Scrolls in 1st person, but thoroughly enjoyed playing in 3rd person in Skyrim. The option had always been there, but it didn't work as well until this instalment, and I loved it for it. Did this harm the gameplay in the first person perspective? Not at all. Just like an easy mode of Dark Souls will not affect someone not looking to invest as much in it, but still would like a good experience. Nor will it affect those like us who want to play it as it was meant to be played.
The AI is to say the least, stupid as a pile of rocks. They are easily exploited.IamLEAM1983 said:
But my point still stands with many contemporary games, they design the games to be somewhat challenging for casuals/controllers, which makes them stupidly easy for veteran players.
Here is my problem, games as a whole are getting easier. I am going back and playing old NES and SNES games and finding them brutal to all but the most damning of current gen games. To liken it to your book analogy, if you buy a book you can't understand, does that mean the writer needs to include footnotes explaining everything at kindergarten level for you? No, it's your fault for buying a book you couldn't read. Don't get me wrong, there have been a few games and a few modes I myself can't beat. Many J-RPG's on the hardest setting are nothing short of absolutely unfair and ridiculous (I am looking at you Resonance of Fate and Infinite Undiscovery), but that doesn't mean I sit and ask for an easy version or for the whole game to come down because I simply am not as skilled as those elite players who can beat those modes.
Have you ever considered the other side of the matter that the controversies are broken records?Monxeroth said:
-WAH I'M PISSED FOR SOMETHING UNRELATED.
-WAH I'M PISSED BECAUSE OF THIS
-WAH IT WILL RUIN EVERYTHING!!!
But seriously, the Internet gaming controversies are pretty much some of the biggest whinefest for small reasons that exists... Jim responds to controversies or stupid decisions. If you've been on the Internet for a long while, you'll know that the former comes often.
Come on man, this ain't Reddit/Tumblr.theultimateend said:
Anyway, in relation to the original video;
I can see what Jim is saying and where he's coming from, but he's over-simplifying the issue and ignoring (or not understanding) the other factors that play into something like this. Difficulty is a massive job for a dev team to measure correctly and takes time and resources away from other areas. Some games can just change the numbers under the hood, but the Souls series difficultly often comes from the environment or the attack patterns of the enemy. Many of the fights in the game rely on the devastating power of the enemies for them to work as intended.
If the developers go in with easy mode in mind, it's going to encourage them to try make their lives easier later my making everything adjustable by the numbers like every other RPG, and then it's not Souls anymore.
And aside from that, it's at the very...er...soul....of the game. It's part of the experience. A casual player might get the content, sure, but it won't be much fun for them.
It's really not a matter of elitism for most Souls fans, those guys just seem the loudest because people focus on negative. The truth is, there isn't anything to be elitist about with Dark Souls, other then the fact it's a very well designed action-RPG.
The truth is, Dark Souls really just isn't that hard, it just requires the right mindset going into it.
Image related, slightly large.
It's not game to relax to, it's a game to sit up and get focused and tense at. Not all games need to be brain-candy, if you want that you've already got a HUGE selection out there.
I admit, I find Skyrim more difficult then bloody Dark Souls. I just like how the Souls titles make take all my actions into serious consideration, and I think most "casuals" could/would as well. In my experience, once someone gets the feel of it, they carry right on and end up loving it.
The game's big flaw is the utterly shite tutorial and the fact it doesn't explain what any of the stats do in any detail. It seems to me this is where all the difficultly comes from.
That, or because people keep going to the cemetery and trying to fight the skeletons until the give up, rather then step back and think about trying another direction. But even that isn't their fault, they've just been trained by modern games to follow the most obvious route and follow the corridors.
So, in my books, 0 votes for an easy mode, 1 point to a better tutorial. That is how you make something accessible, you don't assume the worst in your customers and dumb it down.
Another one was Mass Effect 3. OMGZ HOW DARE IT HAVE A NARRATIVE MODE!!! Yet nobody could explained to me why I should be as butthurt as they were. I was content to just ignore it and play on Hard/Insanity/whatever. Just because it's in the game doesn't mean you have to use it guys. And what's with nonsense like this:
[hr]
Anyway, 5 episodes next week? Thank god for you indeed, Jim! I look forward to seeing what 4 games are covered on Monday through Thursday before The Walking Dead's Friday episode.
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? Who the hell are ANY of you people to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? I'm seeing a lot of snobby, stuck-up comments like the one I quoted all over this thread, and my message to these people... would get me modded, so I won't actually say it, but the polite version is stop it. Other people enjoying a game in a different way than you did doesn't change how much you enjoy the game with your "hardcorez" settings. For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. You all thoroughly disgust me.getoffmycloud said:
No, Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard because the developers fucked up. Easy mode is there to cater to the casuals, Hard mode is supposed to be hard. If Hard mode isn't hard, that's not the fault of Easy mode or casuals, it's the fault of developers who did a shitty job of making their Hard mode actually hard.TwiZtah said:
And once again, those instances are the fault of the developer, not the casuals. They made the game incorrectly and THEY should be the ones getting bashed by teh hardcorez gamerz, not the casuals.burningdragoon said:
[hr]
Anyway, 5 episodes next week? Thank god for you indeed, Jim! I look forward to seeing what 4 games are covered on Monday through Thursday before The Walking Dead's Friday episode.
Quite a few people may not care much for the online aspect and just want an easy trip to the lore and story and I can sorta get behind that.
It must be kept in mind that the souls series is not just a hardcore action rpg for hardcore fans, its a hardcore action rpg that hardcore fans can play together against other hardcore fans. Its a niche game that lets niche fans play together and that nearly never happens anymore.
The games difficulty is integral to the social aspect of it. A hugely important factor that has bonded its players together. I've meet so many people in this game and had so many experiences because of it.
I've invaded and been invaded by a lot of players who sent me a message congratulating me for the victory, telling me it was a good fight when I lost, asking me where one of my weapons or hard to get spells they saw me use could be found. I was once invaded and killed feet away from a boss gate, asked that same player for assistance on said boss and received it. I've made friends this way. I've made friends on an online game after brutally getting killed by these people or killing them in their worlds.
This is totally unlike the random people you meet on Xbox live's other multiplayer games. Good people play souls games, I don't want to see that become like call of duty's multiplayer. Filled with hyperactive swearing kids.
If easy mode turned off the multiplayer this would sort of make the above a moot point, but I still would rather people just got better so more people could hang out at the top.
It must be kept in mind that the souls series is not just a hardcore action rpg for hardcore fans, its a hardcore action rpg that hardcore fans can play together against other hardcore fans. Its a niche game that lets niche fans play together and that nearly never happens anymore.
The games difficulty is integral to the social aspect of it. A hugely important factor that has bonded its players together. I've meet so many people in this game and had so many experiences because of it.
I've invaded and been invaded by a lot of players who sent me a message congratulating me for the victory, telling me it was a good fight when I lost, asking me where one of my weapons or hard to get spells they saw me use could be found. I was once invaded and killed feet away from a boss gate, asked that same player for assistance on said boss and received it. I've made friends this way. I've made friends on an online game after brutally getting killed by these people or killing them in their worlds.
This is totally unlike the random people you meet on Xbox live's other multiplayer games. Good people play souls games, I don't want to see that become like call of duty's multiplayer. Filled with hyperactive swearing kids.
If easy mode turned off the multiplayer this would sort of make the above a moot point, but I still would rather people just got better so more people could hang out at the top.
So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?erttheking said:
OT:
I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...
Fucking casuals grabbing the sword! There shouldn't even BE a sword in Zelda, god damn casuals dumbed the game down!MB202 said:
More like god damn "hardcorez" gamers forgetting that they CAN do things like this. Another example, OH NOEZ LITTLEBIGPLANET ADDED INFINITE RESPAWN CHECKPOINTS, DUMBED DOWN DUMBED DOWN!!!! Hey idiots, you do know you can always quit back to the pod and restart the entire level from the start if you still WANT that challenge in your game, right? Nobody is forcing you to respawn infinitely, you're choosing to and then bitching about something YOU chose to do.
As much as I hated hearing about Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon for a while when it became popular, at least the Pokemon community was intelligent enough to find more challenge in their game since that's what they wanted. And that's supposed to be a "kiddie" game according to teh hardcorez. I guess the kiddies are smarter than you, hardcorez gamers! What are you going to do about it? ... ***** some more? K.
This video honestly made me frustrated. Not because I'm against an easy mode in video games or I'm against casual players but because I am subscribed to a guy on Youtube named Epic Name Bro who already talked about this and he did it a lot better than you as far as the idea of an easy mode in Dark Souls. I'll paraphrase a little bit from him, the idea worried him because of a few problems it might cause for the overall game. First off would be the issue with multiplayer and balancing. Would someone who played the game on the new easy mode and someone who played on the harder difficulty get the same type of gear? If they did then it would be somewhat unfair to the player on the harder difficulty as they are higher skilled and completed a more impressive feat but at the same time the casual player paid the same amount of money so would they not be entitled to balanced multiplayer? From Software could always just take the multiplayer out but that would be a shame as the multiplayer in the souls series is really unique and pretty damn fun.
As for the super mario bit I was kind of confused, why are you comparing Dark Souls to Mario? One is a platformer and the other an ARPG. The people who play them are completely different and the reasons you play them are completely different. Last thing I guess is just trust the developers, if they decide to add in an easier difficulty then it's their decision and it shouldn't be that bad. It's if they don't implement the difficulty in a way that works that you should start to get pissed off.
Anyway that is my (sort of)rant, keep doing what you do Jim Sterling. You are usually pretty awesome.
As for the super mario bit I was kind of confused, why are you comparing Dark Souls to Mario? One is a platformer and the other an ARPG. The people who play them are completely different and the reasons you play them are completely different. Last thing I guess is just trust the developers, if they decide to add in an easier difficulty then it's their decision and it shouldn't be that bad. It's if they don't implement the difficulty in a way that works that you should start to get pissed off.
Anyway that is my (sort of)rant, keep doing what you do Jim Sterling. You are usually pretty awesome.
See what I mean? Right here^The Tall Nerd said:
"People just shouldn't care that much about games" Is a terrible argument.
Saying "people don't give a crap" and declaring victory is an amazing display of childishness.
This immaturity is nothing the community needs if its what we are gonna get if easy mode goes in.
getoffmycloud said:
Ok I am not saying that I should dictate how people play or that new people shouldn't start gaming cause I am all for that I am saying they are not going to get a good impression of games we all think are awesome if you start ripping out what made us all love the games in the first place like the difficulty in Dark souls. If you start doing that then you are going to put people off gaming.mjc0961 said:
Well said Jim, well said.
You know I never see Bayonetta mentioned in any of these difficulty discussions, it really does deserve bringing up. Bayonetta on the harder modes is a challenge enthusiasts dream come true. Bayonetta on super easy mode is easy enough for "filthy casuals" like me. The latter doesn't "destroy" or lessen the former.
This in particular. "There is the "Option" to do it easy? WAAAAA RUINING MY HARDCORE EXPERIENCE!"Penguin_Factory said:
You know I never see Bayonetta mentioned in any of these difficulty discussions, it really does deserve bringing up. Bayonetta on the harder modes is a challenge enthusiasts dream come true. Bayonetta on super easy mode is easy enough for "filthy casuals" like me. The latter doesn't "destroy" or lessen the former.
Well made video Jim, and very good points.
One of the things I find interesting is that gamers mostly do not want to be patronized about their hobby, but tend to alienate those who don't fit into the elitist status of the hardcore. Take this comic on Dorkly for example (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/46874/female-fantasy-iii). It's along the same mentality. "I want someone to indulge and accept my hobby, but you /obviously/ don't know your stuff, so why are you wasting my time?" (Yes, a bit of a gross generalization, but if you strip it to the core concept, they relate). If the casual gamer wants to ease into these more hardcore games, why not give them stepping stools? They could ease up to where they could be on the same level as other gamers, but they aren't going to start there.
Along with that, many of us who frequent gaming sites and play such games have been playing video games since we were young, or more frequently than others. To say that a brand new gamer should "play at our level" is not only off-putting for a new person, but simply a negative thing for the view of gamers themselves. It helps keep the potential for acceptance at a distance.
Now should every single game out there have difficulty settings? No, but if they include the option, or options to help the player out (such as the features Jim pointed out for the NSMB games), then it's fine as they are just that: options. The Easy Mode outcry would have been 100% justifiable if it was the only difficulty that they were patching in, but instead they were giving new, curious players something that they could step into the Dark Souls world and experience it. Also, if that player played on easy and became better, they could amp it up to hard. This could provide the player a great comparison of how they've grown in skill as a video game player, and further encourage them to play harder games.
I've seen where the concern is that, nowadays, Hard and Very Hard are now too easy. A valid concern to have. But maybe it's that system that needs to be tweaked. I know early games had 3 settings (sometimes only 2!):
Easy, Normal, Hard
We then later saw things along the lines of:
Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard
This evolution of options allowed for better tweaking of difficulty so the player could choose how hard they wanted the game. We even saw another evolution of this in Kid Icarus: Uprising, where the intensity was on a slider from 0.1 to 9.0. Maybe such an option should be incorporated into more games, where the dead center is exactly what you think it is: not too hard, but not too easy. It can be hard for a developer to really know where the starting point should be, but giving the option to the player to fine-tune the difficulty is the best choice if you're opening it up to a bigger audience.
This could also be a bad thing where a person on easy gains some form of competitive edge in multiplayer than a person on hard. There are ways around it, but developers should be mindful of this should such a situation like this could exist in their game.
These days I like having the option for the fact that I have so many games I want to play that I don't have the time to play them on a harder difficulty (like I used to do). The easier difficulties allow me to experience the content without spending too much time stuck in certain areas. So many games, so little time.
Lastly, more players means more sales, which can mean sequels to your favorite games. Video games are a business, after all.
So in short, we shouldn't have every single game with this option and finding a good balance when having the options will be difficult, but by giving more players the ability to work up to the "elite" level, we gain more people that we can share our passion with. Outside of the few bad seeds we'll get with it, I'm ok with that.
Thanks for reading my rant on this!
One of the things I find interesting is that gamers mostly do not want to be patronized about their hobby, but tend to alienate those who don't fit into the elitist status of the hardcore. Take this comic on Dorkly for example (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/46874/female-fantasy-iii). It's along the same mentality. "I want someone to indulge and accept my hobby, but you /obviously/ don't know your stuff, so why are you wasting my time?" (Yes, a bit of a gross generalization, but if you strip it to the core concept, they relate). If the casual gamer wants to ease into these more hardcore games, why not give them stepping stools? They could ease up to where they could be on the same level as other gamers, but they aren't going to start there.
Along with that, many of us who frequent gaming sites and play such games have been playing video games since we were young, or more frequently than others. To say that a brand new gamer should "play at our level" is not only off-putting for a new person, but simply a negative thing for the view of gamers themselves. It helps keep the potential for acceptance at a distance.
Now should every single game out there have difficulty settings? No, but if they include the option, or options to help the player out (such as the features Jim pointed out for the NSMB games), then it's fine as they are just that: options. The Easy Mode outcry would have been 100% justifiable if it was the only difficulty that they were patching in, but instead they were giving new, curious players something that they could step into the Dark Souls world and experience it. Also, if that player played on easy and became better, they could amp it up to hard. This could provide the player a great comparison of how they've grown in skill as a video game player, and further encourage them to play harder games.
I've seen where the concern is that, nowadays, Hard and Very Hard are now too easy. A valid concern to have. But maybe it's that system that needs to be tweaked. I know early games had 3 settings (sometimes only 2!):
Easy, Normal, Hard
We then later saw things along the lines of:
Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard
This evolution of options allowed for better tweaking of difficulty so the player could choose how hard they wanted the game. We even saw another evolution of this in Kid Icarus: Uprising, where the intensity was on a slider from 0.1 to 9.0. Maybe such an option should be incorporated into more games, where the dead center is exactly what you think it is: not too hard, but not too easy. It can be hard for a developer to really know where the starting point should be, but giving the option to the player to fine-tune the difficulty is the best choice if you're opening it up to a bigger audience.
This could also be a bad thing where a person on easy gains some form of competitive edge in multiplayer than a person on hard. There are ways around it, but developers should be mindful of this should such a situation like this could exist in their game.
These days I like having the option for the fact that I have so many games I want to play that I don't have the time to play them on a harder difficulty (like I used to do). The easier difficulties allow me to experience the content without spending too much time stuck in certain areas. So many games, so little time.
Lastly, more players means more sales, which can mean sequels to your favorite games. Video games are a business, after all.
So in short, we shouldn't have every single game with this option and finding a good balance when having the options will be difficult, but by giving more players the ability to work up to the "elite" level, we gain more people that we can share our passion with. Outside of the few bad seeds we'll get with it, I'm ok with that.
Thanks for reading my rant on this!
You make some sense but there is the trend in games that hurt themselves by dumbing down WAY too much case in point ff 13. The first 3 hours you can win all the fights simply by pressing one button and have no exploration or danger of getting lost. Oh trust me, the challenge and exploration is eventually there for those who want it in alot of the later marks that will have you swearing at the screen but you have to slog through SO much handholding before you get to the challenging bits.
I clearly heard him say in the video that he didn't play it. And way to generalize yourself there, pal.sindremaster said:
It's not about not wanting "filthy casuals" to play the game, it's about taking away the uncompromizing nature of the game.
The way I see it, games have gotten easier over time for two main reasons:
1) You've gotten better at them. Having played almost every Zelda game, being able to read the environments and enemy patterns has become virtually second nature to me. But hand the controller to somebody who hasn't played them and they'll have a tricky time. It's like Usain Bolt complaining that the race he was in was too easy; well of course it was because he's the best at running.
2) Games were harder back in the day because it was the only way to keep you playing. The limited memory available on old consoles meant the games couldn't be too massive, so in order to pad out the gameplay the games were made nigh on impossible to beat. Now we have infinitely more space to work with than we did, so games can provide more actual content instead of just beating us to death with their difficulty.
1) You've gotten better at them. Having played almost every Zelda game, being able to read the environments and enemy patterns has become virtually second nature to me. But hand the controller to somebody who hasn't played them and they'll have a tricky time. It's like Usain Bolt complaining that the race he was in was too easy; well of course it was because he's the best at running.
2) Games were harder back in the day because it was the only way to keep you playing. The limited memory available on old consoles meant the games couldn't be too massive, so in order to pad out the gameplay the games were made nigh on impossible to beat. Now we have infinitely more space to work with than we did, so games can provide more actual content instead of just beating us to death with their difficulty.