New hard game comes out. Idiot press wants easy mode.
- Thread starter CritialGaming
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This hasn't actually addressed the point I made.CritialGaming said:
Both games are targeted towards particular audiences. So why d'you think people get angry about the suggestion of an easy mode, but not the suggestion of a hard mode?
Would the inclusion of an optional hard-mode (for those of us who are older but enjoy platformers anyway, like myself) somehow damage the integrity of Yoshi's Crafted World?
Maybe because people admire the desire to push towards something harder, but they don't admire or respect people who whine about needed it too easy. But that's just my analytical thoughts behind it.Silvanus said:
For me it's an either way thing. I don't think Yoshi needs a hardmode, just like I don't think Sekiro needs an easy mode.
See, you'll notice that the outline you've given here is nothing to do with the artistic vision of the developers, or about the integrity of the experience or what-have-you. You've appealed instead to the idea of difficulty being "admirable".CritialGaming said:
That's the very basis of my point: people have this romanticised idea of hardcore games bolstering their cred, and this extends to wanting to keep it exclusive and elite. That's why the argument crops up for easy modes, but not hard modes. If it were truly about the integrity of the experience requiring a certain difficulty level, it would come up equally for both.
I don't think either game needs different difficulty settings, and I think it was hyperbole of the author of the article to say Sekiro needs one.
But I sure as hell aren't going to get my jimmies in a rustle about their inclusion. I play Soulsborne games a mad amount, and I find the suggestion that an optional difficulty mode would dilute the experience to be ludicrous.
Hama/Mudo is certainly the most famous example of it, but Nocturne had a few ways RNG could getcha. An enemy could get lucky with a status effect, especially stone or fly. Enemy reinforcements could spawn endlessly and get multiple opportunities to move first, an enemy who happens to use the element your demi-fiend is weak to may happen along and decide to be picky with who he targets.Dreiko said:
really though, none of that had to be terrible. Sure, it leads to trial-and-error and luck based missions from time to time, and generally, for a hard game, when you die you want to feel like you died because you screwed up, not because you couldn't either guess what the game had in store ahead of time, or lost a die roll, but by itself it's just another set dressing. It's when you have those elements in conjunction with long, long periods with no save point that it gets to being just plain frustrating. Replaying an hour of content because you got unlucky just never feels good.
Matador deserves his reputation, for sure. I don't think I've ever met a player who didn't die to him the first time they fought him. I actually like him as a boss idea, though. He foreshadows how much more real the Amala side quests will be compared to the rest of the game, if you decide to pursue them, and teaches newcomers that this is a game where stat buff/debuff spells (which tend to be borderline useless in most JRPGS) are *really* important in this game.
That's interesting. My friend is a guild leader and leads raids so he talks to a lot of people. My view might be tainted by this.Kerg3927 said:Vanilla raids were 40-man. In Burning Crusade they were 25-man. And yeah, they were a lot of work for a guild to put together, but that was the burden of only the handful of people who organized and lead them. The rest just had to apply to a raiding guild, get accepted, prove themselves worthy of a raid slot, and then show up prepared to the scheduled raids, which for the average raiding guild was probably like 3-4 hours/night, 3 nights/week.trunkage said:
Everything in WoW affects everything else because it is a community, or it was. Guilds formed because there are 5-man dungeons and you needed to play in coordinated groups with others to get through that content. Then some guilds became raiding guilds, because the next content after 5-mans were 40-man raids. Success in the game was all predicated on socializing with others and proving your worth to the group.
But some people didn't like that they had to socialize and make friends to succeed. They didn't like that they had to pull their own weight as a player in order to get invited to groups. So they complained. And they complained...
So eventually Blizzard gave in. They put in LFD (Looking for Dungeon). Now to get a 5-man group, you just hit a button and hop in a queue, and bam it ported you into a dungeon with 4 other random people from around the world. And to make it so that these people didn't have to socialize and coordinate as a team or even know how to play the game competently, they dumbed down the dungeons and made them faceroll easy so you could just zerg through it.
Then they did the same for raids with LFR.
So suddenly there is no reason for anyone to have to talk to each other. No reason for anyone to have to learn to play competently. People just zerg through dumbed down dungeons and raids in silence. But here's the catch. That gets boring real fast. So people quit in droves. Subscriptions have steadily declined since then. Some would come back for the next xpac, play for a month or so, get bored, and then quit again. And now subs are estimated to be down to under 2 million, from the 12 million they had before LFR was implemented.
Yes, there are still hard mode raids. And there are still hardcore raiding guilds out there doing them. But I think the number of people doing that is far, far fewer than it was in vanilla and TBC when there was really only one difficulty mode for everyone. And I think that's because the community that once existed doesn't exist anymore and the stimulus to socialize and form large, coordinated guilds is no longer there. And I think most players never get past logging on and queuing for LFD and LFR, before quickly getting bored and quitting. And they've already seen all the raid content, albeit an extremely dumbed down version of it, and they've already gotten all of the gear, albeit versions with lesser stats, and so there is much less motivation, in my opinion, to make the jump to a real raiding guild, especially since nothing they have done up to that point has even required them to learn skills they need to succeed on that level.
Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this thread, but the bottom line is, the people who complained got what they wanted, and then they repaid Blizzard by getting bored and quitting, and it destroyed the WoW community, IMO.
Also, this is pretty much what ESO does. I get in dungeon finders all the time. I get my social stuff through guild events and discord. Not dungeons. This seems to work for ESO as they claim to have 2 million daily users which is way up from a couple of years ago.
I don't know about thid dumbed down stuff. I don't understand how that connected to dungeon finders. It doesn't seem like they should be connected. But I'm probably at my limit of interest in WoW so any response would be ignored. I just can't care about that game.
I think we've both made our arguments, and we're both pretty clear on each other's stance on this. But if you want, I'll address the points in your last post...erttheking said:
That would be mean of her, but after she slapped me, I would suggest to her that she take that passion and instead focus it on learning to beat Iudex Gundyr. Because I know she can probably do it if she keeps at it and learns the boss's patterns. And then I'd offer to show her some tips or send her a youtube video or two that would teach her everything she needs to know in minutes. I'd also point out that if she can get past that first boss, she can summon other players to help her with most of the other bosses in the game, if needed.erttheking said:
There is no reason why From Software should have to cater to "every gamer." No other games do that. And "some people" have tons of other games that they can play if they don't like From Software's design.erttheking said:
I can. Some can't.erttheking said:
^So much THIS. Some seem to believe there?s only ONE thing to appreciate and ONE way to enjoy Souls games making that one reason the sole reason for their existence?Silvanus said:
Let me try this approach: Sports, Beat-?Em-Ups, RPGs, FPSs, RTSs, MMOs, LMNOPs, etc. whatever forever, amen, are ?genres,? aka, those broad terms that quickly and generally qualify what one can reasonably expect from a given game?s experience. Can we agree on that?
?Hard? is not a genre; ?hard? is an adjective which might (and certainly subjectively) describe a single quality of a game. Can we agree on that?
In sticking with the titles we?ve been discussing, we?ve had various opinions as to whether the Souls games are actually ?hard? games; some say yes, it?s what they?re all about; others say not really once you memorize everything. Can we agree on that?
If an avid Fantasy RPG fan wants to experience the world and lore of a Souls game (and rightfully so) and the not necessarily the notorious difficulty over which its self-appointed harden veterans whet their egos, why should a rigid difficulty level be the price of admission? Clearly, as it stands, the difficulty of these RPGs is highly subjective; easier modes would only serve to broaden their appeal and ultimately their following. You know what developers of highly popular and broadly disseminated games get? I?ll just say it ain?t nothing bad?
Yeah, because that would actually affect the experience of someone else other than the player doing the cheating.CritialGaming said:
But they do cater to those gamers with their impressive visuals, complex animations, holistic design, memorable lore and well structured layouts. If you can't appreciate any of those integral components in From Software games, maybe these games aren't for you...Kerg3927 said:
Reading the comments in this thread...makes me wonder how anyone ever played videogames in the classic 2D era. Obviously most of the big names were a few notches above SoulsBorne difficulty, yet there weren?t nearly the cries for including easy modes back then. People look back and say, ?Oh yeah, a buddy and I took turns and finally beat Super Ghouls n Ghosts together. It was awesome!? Everyone familiar would instantly recognize it for what it was: a difficult game. There was no need to ask, ?Oh, well what difficulty did you play it on??
Videogames aren?t a passive activity, so concepts like challenge naturally shift to the forefront of factors that can build appeal. Even single player games are played for challenge and the feelings of overcoming the odds against you, let alone the entertainment value. If some games are designed to have a fixed level of challenge, then they shouldn?t be penalized for it. The fact that they are ?just games? is beside the point.
To reiterate, the notion that adding difficulty options won?t change anything falls apart when considering that?s the very point of them to begin with. Then the argument usually pivots into ?Oh, well you must be an elitist to want to keep people from enjoying something!? Uh, no. Consumers choose with their dollars what they consider to be intriguing game design, and FROM has clearly garnered a significant following and acclaim with their current philosophy. Their fanbase has also grown exponentially in the last decade based on the same. Very doubtful the same could be said if they made their games like everyone else. True, the challenge is only a part of their success model, but still a vital one nonetheless.
Videogames aren?t a passive activity, so concepts like challenge naturally shift to the forefront of factors that can build appeal. Even single player games are played for challenge and the feelings of overcoming the odds against you, let alone the entertainment value. If some games are designed to have a fixed level of challenge, then they shouldn?t be penalized for it. The fact that they are ?just games? is beside the point.
To reiterate, the notion that adding difficulty options won?t change anything falls apart when considering that?s the very point of them to begin with. Then the argument usually pivots into ?Oh, well you must be an elitist to want to keep people from enjoying something!? Uh, no. Consumers choose with their dollars what they consider to be intriguing game design, and FROM has clearly garnered a significant following and acclaim with their current philosophy. Their fanbase has also grown exponentially in the last decade based on the same. Very doubtful the same could be said if they made their games like everyone else. True, the challenge is only a part of their success model, but still a vital one nonetheless.
You know those old sort of games were about forcing micro transactions on you, right? It's the same principle that mobile games have, stupidly difficult to make you spend more money.hanselthecaretaker said:
Also, fixed level games are being punished? By who? The people who think that the game is too hard? I feel like you need to reread your last paragraph. Becuase you've failed to realise that the only people punishing FROM is FROM. These people are telling FROM exactly what they need to buy their game. It's called feedback. It's up to FROM to decide if they want their money or not.
Lastly, didn't the world suddenly turn upside down? Did difficulty modes ruin Doom? System Shcok? Dues Ex? Dishonoured? Otherwise your claim that difficulty mode ruins games is false. It CAN ruin some games but it's definitely not all.
Those 2D games weren't a few "notches" above Souls, there's an ocean separating them. I don't know how anyone can say Souls is actually hard when I played The Lion King, Rescue Rangers, Daffy Duck, Ducktales and many more as a kid. And I'm purposefully emitting the games from that era that have the reputation for being extremely hard. Making games like everyone else is far far more than just putting in difficulty settings. Bioware putting story mode in ME3 didn't make them a studio that makes games like everyone else, it was Anthem as that's a game that everyone else is making. Souls will still be Souls with the addition of Easy difficulty just like Mass Effect 3 was still a Bioware game. Gaming has grown exponentially since the 2D era as well. Just maybe that has to do with games being more approachable.hanselthecaretaker said:
Dunkey's video nails what accomplishment in gaming actually is and no easy mode will take that away from any game ever.
"The idea of accomplishment doesn't stem from beating the game, but rather mastering it." It's just that those 8/16-bit games required mastery to beat. Thus, beating them was an accomplishment, which isn't true of beating a Souls game.
Yeah, and people, some-fucking-how, keep ignoring the fact that the dude praised Cuphead the entire time, wasn't reviewing it, and fully admitted culpability for flubbing gameplay footage from a convention floor on day 3, AND "GAMERS" ARE STILL LOSING THEIR MINDS OVER SUPPOSED "BASHING OF CUPHEAD" THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED!CritialGaming said:
I'd say it's a perfect fucking parallel, because the people laying into the games journalists have a preconceived box they're pulling arguments from instead of actually listening to the people they're insulting!
Yes, let's do that.hanselthecaretaker said:
Let's talk about games in the classic 2D era.
Let's talk about Mega Man II. A game on damn near everyone's shortlist for Best Mega Man Game Ever. Let's talk about how Mega Man 2 had a Normal mode and a Difficult mode. Let's talk about how Normal Mode wasn't in the Japanese release, and was added as an optional easy difficulty mode for international release.
Didn't seem to ruin Mega Man, now did it
Or should we talk about Super Mario Brothers 2? Where you played as either Mario, Luigi, Toad, or Peach and threw vegetables at Birdo. Except that isn't SMB2, that's what they released in the US because actual SMB2 was balls hard and they didn't think we'd like it. Now let's talk about how it was so successful that Nintendo re-localized it for Japan under the name of Super Mario USA and how design elements from it define the Mario universe to this day.
I understand where you are coming from. Since I don't play shooters on consoles, give me a controller and it'll look something like Polygon's Doom footage. It's just that I don't like games journalists for obvious reasons.altnameJag said:
I'm going to confess. While I had a strong itch to rant on game journalists, I also had the ulterior motive to see what people thought was more important: the fact that a player can't beat the game they bought, or defending the honor of game journalists.
It doesn't exist. You can find plenty of them railing on hardcore gamers being related to exclusionary game design (as if devs were going to take the effort to piss on casual gamers), but no one will admit that they played on easy mode. However, someone was bamboozled by the last stage of easy mode, whether it be the journalists playing or their friends, and things got heated from there.
Game journalists generally do not play difficult games. What passes as a difficult game is debatable, but would you rather review your free super-hype AAA games, or some indie game that takes 50 hours of repetition and gets little clicks?
Championing easy mode is good and all, except easy mode is not one-size fits all solution. It puts a burden on devs who want to deliver you a single fine-tuned experience.
Easy modes tend to be half assed, like you do 200% damage while the enemy does 50%. Easy mode can't solve platforming sections a mazelike sections, or a puzzle sections without manual map adjustments. You have to put extra effort to compile and maintain two or more versions of the same map.
You also have to playtest easy mode, because it likely will be an inferior version of the game. You will ignore aspects of the game simply because they are unnecessary, such as scouting, memorizing difficult combos, activating or switching buffs, or prepping with consumables and crafting. Then there's the fact that some games can't let you switch difficulty or chapter select, but only load saves, which means you have to restart the game to play easy mode.
Then, while catering to the people who can't beat normal mode, you also have to cater to the non-gamers who are also oppressed by exclusionary game design. Another mode for sight-seers I guess.
Cheat codes on the other hand takes no effort and bypasses almost every problem. Everyone plays the same game, except you can play seriously with God mode on, and despite the fact you can't die, you also get better playing the game normally. You can experiment by spawning X item during a fight, or just spawn some OP sword and one hit everything. Rather than having the dev handcraft some experience just for you, you can do it yourself.
Uhh... How do you think Normal difficulty is reached during development? By changing damage and health modifiers!!! During the development, the lead designer will at some point say the game is a bit too easy, and all you have to do is save that and you have easy difficulty. Easy and Hard difficulties are attained before Normal difficulty, how do you think you get to Normal difficulty? It doesn't just magically happen on the first try. And games are hardly playtested for balance purposes, they're playtested for bugs. Playtesters literally play the game complete opposite of how it's supposed to be played to find bugs. More proof to that is how fucking unbalanced games are, just look at shooters and how unbalanced normal guns are like ARs, SMGs, shotguns, etc. and there's tons of those every year and devs still can't balance such simple shit.I don said:
I only remember paying one retail price for games like 8-16 bit Castlevania, Super Mario, Super Ghouls n Ghosts, all the old Zeldas including N64 entries, etc. where are you getting MT?s from?trunkage said:
And speaking of FROM, they clearly must not be too concerned with their bottom line under their current design philosophy as they?ve stuck with it so far. I think it?s more a case of them having the integrity to realize that some things (like being able to make games how they want) are more important. I already mentioned above that it?s up to the consumer, and they?ve still managed to speak in droves despite the continued absence of a difficulty select. Nothing was a problem until people started complaining that the game needed more difficulty options. So there?s that.
You also kinda contradicted and then self-corrected your own comment at the end there, so...ok.