Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[scorptatious]

To be honest, if it weren't for the inclusion of an easy mode in certain games, (like Metal Gear Solid 3) I probably wouldn't be into the games I am today. So I guess by today's standards, I would have been considered a "filthy casual" by the people you described Jim.

Seriously, I find people who think that their hobby should be exclusive to them and look down on others who aren't as skilled as they are or who like to play "casual" games incredibly annoying. It's almost like they've forgotten that they were once as unskilled as people who are new to gaming are now. Hell, when I first started gaming, I could NEVER get past the fifth level in Crash Bandicoot 2 without help. Many years later, I practically aced that level.

 

[Mortrialus]

So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?

In the case of Dark Souls specifically, yes. Gaining that knowledge base bit by bit quite literally IS the game in Dark Souls. Not everyone is going to enjoy every game. That is just a simple fact. The idea that every developer should make their games with the intention that everyone should enjoy the finished product is wrong, and isn't even if it was universally adopted isn't going to change that.

How is that any different than paying for a difficult, challenging book on philosophy? Not everyone is going to have the previous knowledge base required to understand the book and the ideas presented. Not everyone is going to be able to understand the concepts presented in the book. They will be missing out on the content of the books, the ideas presented in it, just like gamers who don't want to obtain the knowledge base required to complete Dark Souls will be.

I am not against modal difficulty in games. I am not against easy games in general. I am not saying every game needs to be crazy hard. I'm saying it depends on a case by case basis. What I am against is the absolutism presented in the video. To me it's like akin to demanding that every game include both first and third person modes, regardless of how the rest of the game is designed. Some games should only have 1st person modes. Some games should only have 3rd person modes. Some games should offer both. It depends entirely on how the game is designed.

 

[Darmani]

I disagree only on the idea those arguing against easy mode or casualizing effects not having a reasonable or sane argument and as such always against stupid people.

Here is my counter that frequenters of the Game Overthinker may consider

"Thing about "easy modes" is that it's in many ways not really...

How do I word this.

It's disingenuous to call ANY game released in the last ten years "hard", so adding an "easy" mode to them is almost asinine. If you can't win a game made in the last decade then you're just not coordinated enough to play video games. Or drive. Or have children for that matter.

See those old, hard games we used to play as kids were not just hard, they were patently and demonstrably UNFAIR to the point that the only real way to win most of them was to become obsessive compulsive (when I was a kid, I sat down for six hours one weekend and played Battletoads until I memorized every pixel on the screen...the jetbike level is not as hard as people claim but the "rolling disco ball of death" thing almost killed me).

Because most of them were designed to artificially lengthen the game by making it virtually impossible to win without OCD focusing on doing so. That was "replay" value back in the day. To say nothing of the monstrously bad controls, hit detection and jumping physics most of those games (especially platformers) had...some of them BY DESIGN it would appear. And then you add to that the "tutorial mode" was just your mom reading a poorly translated or even PARODY-TRANSLATED instruction booklet and, wow, how in Christ's name did we win those games?

Today you have games with perfect controls, stunningly fine tuned game worlds, saves anywhere, and basically tutorials holding your hand every step of the way...if you can't complete a game made between 1998 and now, that's YOU not the game.

Modern games do everything but tuck you in at night anyway, and even ones like Dark/Demon's Souls are not nearly as mind-numbingly difficult as some games that came out just back in the 1990s.

What people MISTAKE for difficulty now is just a game offering a genuine, fair challenge. One which does not, or only rarely, or if poorly made, requires rote memorization and laser-guided effort the way that Battletoads or something INSANE like some "adventure" games (which were anything but adventurous) would put forth. You couldn't release something with those asinine, old-style controls and shitty hit detection and luck-based dificulty curves now.

Well...you COULD but people would think it was a glitch not an intentional design. Or a parody, like I Want To Be The Guy.

Part of this is because a LOT of those old games were arcade ports, and by definition were basically rigged carnival games whose difficulty curve looked like a vertical ascent. There is no reason to make "easy modes" now because games now, by the definition of anyone who knows what that term means, already ARE much, much less self-destructive and nuanced than any generation of games before.

I'm sorry but if someone out there needs an "easy mode" to win, for example, Assassin's Creed then you really don't need to put it in because they're not going to be playing the game without their live-in nurse holding the controller and pushing all the buttons for them. Because that person a quadruple amputee in an irreversible coma. "

An Easy Mode that conveys the same experience as if difficulty is this extraneous factor runs counter to ALL the integrated experiences people keep saying they want in gaming. And remember it was the constant streamlining to the casual market that lead to some of the issues of ME 3

 

[cynicalsaint1]

Regarding the argument everyone is entitled to play through all of the content of their game that they payed for:

I bought Skyrim and I really wanted to like it, everyone I knew was playing and enjoying it and talking about it - I wanted in on that action. But no matter how hard I tried I simply couldn't get into it - no matter what I just found myself bored while playing it. By your argument Betheseda should be expected to modify Skyrim to better suit my tastes so that the game doesn't drive me away and that I can enjoy all of the content that I paid for.

Of course many of the things I found that turned me off to Skyrim are probably a lot of the things other people like about it.

But hey fuck those guys, they are obviously all elitists who want to keep Skyrim for themselves and if they can't see how having a smaller world with fewer side quests and a more focused story could help the game appeal to a new audience then they probably hate gays and beat women too.

 

[RTR]

5 straight days of Jimquisition? YAAAAAAAY (Kermit arms)!

Also, I love Willem Dafoe's gloves.

 

[Erttheking]

My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.

Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?

I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.

 

[Peithelo]

If you abolish a things defining aspects it loses its individuality, meaning and very purpose.

I have nothing against people who prefer for any reasons to play games that are easily embraced. The thing is, though, that not every game can or should be so easily accessible to every single person imaginable. Our personal tastes and preferences are unique to us and that is why there at least should be a broad selection of different kinds of games to choose from. It is important to remember that not everything is meant for everyone, and seeing others enjoy something doesn't mean it's necessarily suitable for you as well. Or should every game perhaps also have an exceptionally difficult mode, even if it goes against the games nature? Of course not, it would be nonsensical.

Dark Souls is often said to be a punishing game. That may be so, but in general it only punishes those who are hasty or otherwise remain indifferent to the many visual clues the developers have intentionally placed all around and often in reasonable locations.

Dark Souls is often also mistaken to be an action RPG. While Dark Souls certainly has many aspects that are usually affiliated with such a genre of games, the description in this case would be lacking. Perhaps the most prominent theme in Dark Souls is exploration, coupled with quite a heavy focus on strategic, knowledge based gameplay.

 

[sindremaster]

Edit: I've seen (and been a part of) this argument before. I'm out.

 

[orangeapples]

People fear Dark Souls getting an Easy Mode because they feel it would remove difficulty from future games as developers feel the need to cater to the casual market who wouldn't want to play a difficult game.

this of course is wrong as developers pretty much start at the hardest difficulty as "how the game should be played" then dial down enemies for lesser difficulties. People who hate the idea of easy mode feel as though easy mode is destroying games.

which is also wrong. I remember easy mode as far back as Doom (and possibly even existed before that). So if Easy Mode was going to destroy video games as a medium, it would have happened a long time ago. You people need to just calm down.

Thing is though, Dark souls really isn't hard. No really it's not. The enemies usually don't have that much health, the game isn't that long, all it takes is patience.

But here is the thing, Easy mode for Doom is not the same as Easy mode for Dark Souls. If you take difficulty out of Dark souls what do you have? A very mediorce Action-RPG with little to no story (at least not straight to the point), and that's it. You literally suck the soul out of the game.

Doom on easy? It's an FPS which adjusts well to easy mode and still is enjoyable.

Are you saying that playing the game on Easy makes it less enjoyable? Is there anything inherently wrong with a mediocre action RPG with little to no story?

would I somehow enjoy games less because I play on a lower difficulty? Because not everyone plays a game for challenge. some people just want to sit back, relax and enjoy the atmosphere of a game. They don't want a long tedious puzzle to help them unwind. Some people on the other hand would be able to relax with a long tedious puzzle and that helps them unwind. Is it somehow wrong for a game to be open to both of these avenues of relaxation and enjoyment?

 

[Erttheking]

I'm sure this post will bite me in the ass, but the last few episodes of Jimquisition have been nothing but "You gamers are upset about something; How dare you, you whiny little bastards." I'm sorry, but it's starting to get a bit condescending.

To be fair, judging by what gamers get upset by, most of us are whiny little bastards.

And you might've wanted to play Dark Souls first before stating that adding an easy mode wouldn't matter. It's easy to generalize everyone in the "no easy mode" camp as bitchy, hardcore elitists.

I'm pretty sure he has played it.
And everyone in the no easy mode camp are bitchy hardcore elitists. It's optional there is no reason to not want it, other than hating the idea that someone can play through it without being awesome at games. Which is pretty much the definition of bitchy hardcore elitists.

With all due respect, I personally do not approve of an easy mode in Dark Souls. It's just kinda contradictory to the whole point of the game. I really don't care about what difficulty you play on when it comes to most games, but Dark Souls is an exception, because the difficulty is the whole point of the matter. Please do not insult me for having a different opinion than you.

 

[Smolderin]

I would like to think that it isn't the fact there might be an easy mode in Dark Souls, it is more of what it represents to the gaming industry. Let's be honest here guys, Dark Souls is a hard core game for the hard core gamer. That is the target demographic for the game. A game like Demon Souls and Dark Souls are beloved by this community because as it stands, these games are practically a dying breed. A shining example of what many of us would like to play in a increasingly casual pandering industry. As such, when one of these games come along, and it is good, it is bound to garner a passionate player base.

I don't think people complaining about Dark Souls potentially having an easy mode are being elitist, I think they are generally concerned about what such implications could mean for games like Dark Souls down the line. Dark Souls at it's core is not meant to be easy, and as such, Dark Souls attracts a certain crowd of usually like minded individuals who are craving a challenge that is quite honestly missing in today's gaming market. These people play through the game, and these people beat the game...and usually will replay it trying different methods and strategies. It is a game that will not pander you, it will test your mettle as a gamer. People want that challenge. Dark Souls is strictly skill based. If you die over and over and over again, it's probably because you suck....but you can learn from your mistakes. The game rewards persistence and patience, it rewards learning from your mistakes. In a way, it sort of untrains you to a degree from all the easier games you have played.

People are afraid of a game like Dark Souls losing its identity. They are afraid that the people who are so used to being pandered will pick up the game, see how hard it is, and automatically complain about it...usually quitting in the process. They are afraid that From Software will hear these complaints and tailor it to meet their needs. They are afraid that corporate greed will take over, and have games like Dark Souls developed so that it would appeal to a wider audience, to make it more "accessible".

So yes, adding an easy mode to Dark Souls is a big deal. It's one step closer to a game like that losing it's identity. It's one step closer to becoming like the others. And if a game like Dark Souls is not immune from being a victim of corporate pandering, what game is? And what does that mean for the gamers like us who enjoy those types of games? Yes, it is possible for a game like Dark Souls to maintain it's difficulty while having an optional easy mode...but as soon as that happens, we cannot kid ourselves. The second that a easy mode is implemented means a decrease in overall difficulty in the games that follow, it has happened in many game series. Plus there is still the fact that a game in which it's community had all gone through the trial by fire known as Dark Souls, would be no more different than the rest of the online communities.

One of the posters above was very much correct. Dark Souls has a niche online community, and many of us want it to stay niche. The include of an easy mode would threaten that community. It all goes back to how unique Dark Souls is, and how it attracts a certain group of people. Dark Souls is for us, and people willing to take on the game's challenge and learn from their own mistakes. The game is a refuge for a playerbase that games are no longer made for, as such we are a passionate bunch which is why we are the ones loudest when we hear something that threatens the experience of future games in the franchise.

 

[DRTJR]

I would like to say I found the Brave new world reference funny, good show there Jim.

Also an while I am for inclusiveness in in Easy, Normal, Hard, and Sadistic modes to gameplay. I thought Darksouls modus operandi was being as sadistic as possible.

 

[wyldefire]

I disagree with Jim's assessment of this issue and of his broader assertion that hardcore gamers hate the things they hate because of egocentrism Certainly that exists, but he's over emphasizing it.

The Dark Souls backlash is a perfect example of this. With that game, complaints about the difficulty have nothing to do with shutting people out. Most hardcore fans, myself included, pray that more people pick the game up and plug at it until they understand it better. That's the thing about cult series, you're not always sure you'll see another game in the franchise so you want to see it do well.

But Dark Souls is to video games what The Wire is to television in terms of approachability. Difficulty in the 'Souls' series is a crucial part of the franchise's DNA. Death and rebirth, determination and fear, triumph and loss, these elements are the essence of the games' souls.

Putting in an easy mode, that tempers the consequences, is to miss the entire point of a game that is built from the ground up with death as the central mechanic. It would fundamentally break the game by negating all of the work put into weapon balance, enemy design and animations, and level structure.

And that, would ruin the series.

 

[MB202]

See, this is why I WASN'T one of the guys who got up in arms about an easy mode in Mega Man 10. Mega Man is fucking hard, and I don't want to risk strangling myself in frustration when there's an easier option. I mean, there are many different levels a game can be played. Like some people try playing the original Zelda without using the sword. Who's to say we can't do something similar with modern games; having the option of both easier to play games for everyone and harder to play games for experts wanting to test their mettle.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

What I want to know is what will happen to Jim now that he has eaten his experiment?

Will he develop the powers of a carrot gifted with gab? Will he breed an army of vegetable/Willem Dafoe hybrids? Are there no limits to the dark designs this sinister mastermind conjures?

 

[Elois]

So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?

Yes you are. You paid for the challenge, so get better. The game doesn't put up a magical door that stops you from progressing if you are a casual or some such nonsense. It puts appropriate challenges in front of you, learning the skills to beat the challenges is the entire point of the game.

 

[DoctorObviously]

I like how this episode describes TotalBiscuit.

 

[theultimateend]

My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.

Well your issue is silly.

You don't have to play it that way.

Now if you wanted a legitimate issue that isn't silly, being concerned that they get tons of sales from the easy mode and realize that they could save time and effort by making Dark Souls 3 just an easy game with the same atmosphere would be a concern.

One might think that's a silly fear, but look at the rising price of PC games in response to that FPS getting raised 10 bucks (though it looks like this is going back to 49.99?)

Or what happened to most franchises that EA got a hold of.

Dragon Age 2?

Stuff like that.

Basically people, I hope, are not worried that the CURRENT game will get or be ruined. They are worried that the profits will be so disproportionate that there will be no fiscal incentive to continue catering to the "hardcore" folks.

It's a genuine problem and the one that gets lost when folks just complain that they can't get how other people would 'like that sort of thing'.

I don't get Hostel films, but lots of folks like them, I just make the choice to not. Same for folks playing DS on easy. (Albeit I probably would, I don't have the time or desire to play a game that punches me in the asshole all day, but I do respect that the option is there).

And that, would ruin the series.

To you.

It wouldn't actually change anything to ADD optional features to any game.

When I was a kid folks had "easy" mode through devices like gameshark and game genie. These days those are nearly impossible to find or use, so now folks turn to developers actually catering to everyone if possible.

Just because you don't get it, or don't like it, doesn't mean its wrong. Also your opinions on art aren't objectively correct. What you feel is the DNA of this thing is not necessarily the case.

This isn't ACTUAL biology, you don't have a literal concrete string of data to pull from. This is an intepretation of an art.

A good example was Smash Brothers. Everyone I ever knew thought the game was about intense competition. The game dev thought it was about being retarded and tripping all over the place.

I disagree with his view, but that's just how it works. I feel one way, they feel another, and other people feel different further still.

That's the beauty of gaming, letting everyone interpret things as they wish. Especially when the modularity of those interpretations literally never impact you in any way whatsoever.

Hey, Hey Jim!

You DO know that games aren't made by magic right?

You DO know that creating easy modes takes time, right? Not every game can be made easier simply by adding more player health and making the enemies less durable, if the difficulty is execution based then it WILL take time out of development to put in a easy mode and as such provide less of the actual good game content that people want. A game that would provide a good example of this would be, oh I dunno, DARK SOULS.

Not a SINGLE person is complaining about just adding a mode where the player health is simply increased. Not. A. One.

Wouldn't what you said at the end be exactly what Easy Mode in Dark Souls would be >.>

Higher DPS and Higher Health...

I'm not aware of anything else you'd add that would be necessary. That's exactly what most games I've played do for easy modes, you become a walking tank and your enemies are paper dolls.