By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do people get upset by OPTIONAL difficult assists?

SvennoJ said:
danasider said:

You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but I agree that this is a point we disagree on.

Dark Souls (and Bloodborne/Demon Souls) is about figuring things out for yourself, sure. But that is just a small part of it's allure. The exploration of everything from the world to the gameplay systems is put on the gamer instead of the game as a means of getting you into the mindset that you have to play with a critical mind. You have to worry about death around every corner unlike other action games that arm the player with loads of hp and god like powers.

The higher threshhold of difficulty is just as defining of the vision as the "figure it yourself out" style of game play. These things are used to ramp up the adrenaline and make the player really pay attention to the game's environments, enemy patterns, etc.

Prepare to Die is the series slogan for a reason. The developers want you to face challenges, dig deep, and overcome them, even knowing full well you are going to face failure a lot before finding that success. And the payoff is unlike anything in other games. It's not only adrenaline pumped ride, but the payoff is relief and pride. I'm not saying I don't enjoy other action games, but I have enjoyed them a lot less after Bloodborne, because I don't get that feeling when fighting a boss. In fact, there are a lot of games I don't even die in at all or only a few times so any sense of significance to how you play is diminished. And with games, how to get through content is more important than what the content is, because gameplay is the most important defining feature of the medium. So is the level of immersion, another thing which would be severely affected by the change of flow due to giving player's relief.

So yeah, that sense of dread/adrenaline/relief and that payoff would be ruined since the risk and impact of dying would be lessened. Options aren't a terrible thing...unless it goes against the integrity of the developer's design and vision. Handicaps in a game like Dark Souls is exactly that, because how to get through the game is way more important than getting through the content. If it were played with those "accessibility options" (though I'd argue that is a loose term for basically completely changing the gameplay in a case like this), the player wouldn't even be playing the same game. But that's just my opinion.

Yet how do optional difficulty options ruin your sense of pride when playing at the highest or recommended difficulty level. Why would it bother you that other people can start at a lower difficulty. Personally I didn't feel and pride or sense of achievement getting past that ridiculous boss guarding the path to the under city. It was simply frustrating having to come back from firelink shrine every time, or the other bon fire later. I don't enjoy repeating the same action over and over just to get to where I left off before. It does not heighten my adrenaline, just my frustration level. Difficulty options can also mean more checkpoints.

I enjoyed exploring the world in Dark Souls, sparring with Tower knights, going places I wasn't really equipped for yet. I did not enjoy the bosses much at all. Yet I grinded the spider queen for a while in co-op to meet the level requirement for equipment I wanted to use to continue exploration.

Anyway what wa the developer's vision when it comes to dying a lot. Nobody knows, yet not everyone has the same skill level or understanding of game mechanics. 10 deaths, 100 deaths, 1000 deaths to get to the next bonfire? What is the optimal number of deaths to 'enjoy' the game as intended. It's all flexible, as in any rpg. They always depend on how much time you have to put into it. Is it sensible to say that if you don't have 60 hours to dedicate on a game that you should not buy it? Is there an optimal time you should spend on a game to appreciate it as intended? Some people will finish it much faster than others, who gets the intended experience? Flexible difficulty options are never a bad thing imo. Better yet if the game slightly adjusts the difficulty behind the scenes to serve each player the intended number of deaths and game length.

And people that are very good and finished the game very fast even on difficult most can't get over with didn't enjoy the game since they didn't thought it was hard?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

And people that are very good and finished the game very fast even on difficult most can't get over with didn't enjoy the game since they didn't thought it was hard?

Yes, I guess those that thought it was easy did not get the intended experience...

There are lots of levels of appreciation for art. If you want to get the full experience of The Witcher books you have to read them in the original Polish with significant understanding of Polish history and culture. Otherwise a lot of the humor and themes will go over your head. However I still managed to enjoy them in English without knowing much about Polish culture at all.



SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

And people that are very good and finished the game very fast even on difficult most can't get over with didn't enjoy the game since they didn't thought it was hard?

Yes, I guess those that thought it was easy did not get the intended experience...

There are lots of levels of appreciation for art. If you want to get the full experience of The Witcher books you have to read them in the original Polish with significant understanding of Polish history and culture. Otherwise a lot of the humor and themes will go over your head. However I still managed to enjoy them in English without knowing much about Polish culture at all.

And that truly is a thing that happen with rumour and nuances when just doing a translation from a language and another but the reader not knowing the context.

I can only imagine FF VII before being translated in English and people outside of Japan was playing it (without guide) and finished the game (of course without a single idea about the story of the game, and just memorizing the kanji of skills and effects against each monster on trial and error)... they them saying the dev intended the game to be played in Japanese by people that know Japan mythology so there is no point in translating it to English, whoever wants to play it better learn japanese and its culture to really appreciate the game instead of watering it down with some translation for the dirty mainstreamer. What happens to the pride of people that made dictionaries to play the game if you can play it translated?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I agree that there should be easier modes, even for the souls games. Not only for people who are not good at the games, but also for people like me who are students or have a lot of work and no time to grind and die all the time. It's like I have one hour to pay this game and I die again and again and don't progress at all. I don't have the time to improve at the game and inconsistent playing isn't helping me either. Now imagine everytime you have free time, you do and you don't progress much at all after a month because of the time constraints and the ridiculous amounts of grind and death. You wouldn't wanna play those games anymore right. So you wouldn't buy them not because you're not interested but because they are essentially inaccessible to you. As a dev you are making a weird decision because you're losing profits and new fans and have purposefully made a bubble that does not allow your game and player base to grow. As a player it really doesn't affect you at all because you're still playing the same game. So it's beneficial to the new players and the devs as long as it is optional. You can even add a really hard mode like megaman levels of hard or even harder for thsoe players that like the stuff.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
I agree that there should be easier modes, even for the souls games. Not only for people who are not good at the games, but also for people like me who are students or have a lot of work and no time to grind and die all the time. It's like I have one hour to pay this game and I die again and again and don't progress at all. I don't have the time to improve at the game and inconsistent playing isn't helping me either. Now imagine everytime you have free time, you do and you don't progress much at all after a month because of the time constraints and the ridiculous amounts of grind and death. You wouldn't wanna play those games anymore right. So you wouldn't buy them not because you're not interested but because they are essentially inaccessible to you. As a dev you are making a weird decision because you're losing profits and new fans and have purposefully made a bubble that does not allow your game and player base to grow. As a player it really doesn't affect you at all because you're still playing the same game. So it's beneficial to the new players and the devs as long as it is optional. You can even add a really hard mode like megaman levels of hard or even harder for thsoe players that like the stuff.

World of warcraft had a system where you get double xp up to a certain point depending on how long you haven't played, sort of a rest bonus not to fall behind too much when playing with friends that have more time. Everquest 2 had a system where you can still play with your higher level friends by adjusting their level so it would not become too unbalanced. Single player games can use these kind of systems as well. If it detects you are binge playing it can increase the difficulty to give you what you want, a longer experience. If it detects you only have time to play an hour a week it can reduce difficulty / random encounters and help you out with reminders of how systems work.

Game AI has a long way to go and involves a lot more than smart enemies. Stories were originally interactive. A good comedian plays and reacts to the crowd. A good DJ reads the room and adjusts their playlist accordingly. Games are supposed to be an interactive medium, yet so far interactivity only goes one way. The player has to adapt to the game. A new generation of games should be able to adapt to the player. There were already plans to react to the player's state of mind with Kinect 2.0, yet that never came to anything thanks to MS screwing up this gen. The vitality sensor could also have been used to tailor game experience to get the intended reaction out of players. Bio feedback is going to deliver the next generation of game play. It's just a matter of time.

Last edited by SvennoJ - on 15 December 2018

DonFerrari said:
danasider said:

AngryLittleAlchemist is right, though. The creators never have tried to put a mode like this despite 5 games in the SoulsBorne series. They made the game a specific way, because its their interpretation of what the game should be and how it should be played. Adding a easy mode would not only dilute the experience that they put so much work into perfecting, it'd essentially suck the soul right out of the series for the gamers who only played that mode, because they'd essentially be playing a different game. I very much doubt From Software would want that despite there being a chance to cater to a broader audience.

Like AngryLittleAlchemist said, not every game is for everyone. This is the only major entertainment medium where consumers believe they are entitled to having the content creator cater to them. People reading a horror novel don't expect the author to make it less scary or the words shorter so that they can get through the book easier. People looking at a painting don't say "well, this should have yellow in it, because it's my favorite color and everyone else has their color in the painting. Giving the painting a broader appeal by including my favorite color shouldn't harm the integrity of the artist's vision."

If we don't like a movie, we don't by tickets. Same with books, and same with games. We show what we like by supporting the devs/publishers with our money. So if you don't like a game the way it's developer intended it to be, the answer is not to change the game. The answer is for you to move on and support the games you like.

On the other hand, if it's already in the game and the devs intended for it to be used in order to appeal to a mass audience. That's fine. But it's not the devs responsibility to make a game YOU enjoy.

Sorry but that is BS. Movies, books, comics and series have it all the time, even more with SJW and "representation" demands. To the point when a midia cross happens it also change the public intended with the changes they do to the material.

Spindel said:

For your sake I hope you have not played X-com (the original or the remake)

I haven't. Why?

It has a inverse difficulty curve (the opposite of what you want). It starts out insanely difficult because your squad is under staffed and under equiped. Becomes easier the further you progress. 



Eagle367 said:
I agree that there should be easier modes, even for the souls games. Not only for people who are not good at the games, but also for people like me who are students or have a lot of work and no time to grind and die all the time. It's like I have one hour to pay this game and I die again and again and don't progress at all. I don't have the time to improve at the game and inconsistent playing isn't helping me either. Now imagine everytime you have free time, you do and you don't progress much at all after a month because of the time constraints and the ridiculous amounts of grind and death. You wouldn't wanna play those games anymore right. So you wouldn't buy them not because you're not interested but because they are essentially inaccessible to you. As a dev you are making a weird decision because you're losing profits and new fans and have purposefully made a bubble that does not allow your game and player base to grow. As a player it really doesn't affect you at all because you're still playing the same game. So it's beneficial to the new players and the devs as long as it is optional. You can even add a really hard mode like megaman levels of hard or even harder for thsoe players that like the stuff.

The idea people is saying here is on an imaginary slippery slope where by just adding a easier option (be it stamina infinite, more damage delt and less suffered, bigger target box ,etc) they would certainly make the base game very easy so mass market can play it on hard to feel acomplished and that would ruin the genre.

Spindel said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry but that is BS. Movies, books, comics and series have it all the time, even more with SJW and "representation" demands. To the point when a midia cross happens it also change the public intended with the changes they do to the material.

I haven't. Why?

It has a inverse difficulty curve (the opposite of what you want). It starts out insanely difficult because your squad is under staffed and under equiped. Becomes easier the further you progress. 

That probably become a very boring experience as you suffer at first and then don't even remember what you needed to do to cruise along all else.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Eagle367 said:
I agree that there should be easier modes, even for the souls games. Not only for people who are not good at the games, but also for people like me who are students or have a lot of work and no time to grind and die all the time. It's like I have one hour to pay this game and I die again and again and don't progress at all. I don't have the time to improve at the game and inconsistent playing isn't helping me either. Now imagine everytime you have free time, you do and you don't progress much at all after a month because of the time constraints and the ridiculous amounts of grind and death. You wouldn't wanna play those games anymore right. So you wouldn't buy them not because you're not interested but because they are essentially inaccessible to you. As a dev you are making a weird decision because you're losing profits and new fans and have purposefully made a bubble that does not allow your game and player base to grow. As a player it really doesn't affect you at all because you're still playing the same game. So it's beneficial to the new players and the devs as long as it is optional. You can even add a really hard mode like megaman levels of hard or even harder for thsoe players that like the stuff.

The idea people is saying here is on an imaginary slippery slope where by just adding a easier option (be it stamina infinite, more damage delt and less suffered, bigger target box ,etc) they would certainly make the base game very easy so mass market can play it on hard to feel acomplished and that would ruin the genre.

Spindel said:

It has a inverse difficulty curve (the opposite of what you want). It starts out insanely difficult because your squad is under staffed and under equiped. Becomes easier the further you progress. 

That probably become a very boring experience as you suffer at first and then don't even remember what you needed to do to cruise along all else.

Yes I know you won’t enjoy X-com by your comments in this thread. Thats why I Said you should stat away from it. 

 

On a side note: I do have to hate on X-com 2, it’s crap.



Spindel said:
DonFerrari said:

The idea people is saying here is on an imaginary slippery slope where by just adding a easier option (be it stamina infinite, more damage delt and less suffered, bigger target box ,etc) they would certainly make the base game very easy so mass market can play it on hard to feel acomplished and that would ruin the genre.

That probably become a very boring experience as you suffer at first and then don't even remember what you needed to do to cruise along all else.

Yes I know you won’t enjoy X-com by your comments in this thread. Thats why I Said you should stat away from it. 

On a side note: I do have to hate on X-com 2, it’s crap.

Thanks for the heads up. I certainly prefer either games that keep me moderatelly challenged the whole game or that I can breeze and enjoy all. Inconsistent games don't get me that much satisfied.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Bisa said:

I normally (always) stay out of the whole optional easy options discussion as it seems like an argument that just doesn't get anywhere but I will say im all for every game having a "god mode" option. Celeste had the best accessibility options I've seen in any game, allowing jump modifications (double jump, infinite jumps) infinite stamina, faster or slower gameplay and flat out "God Mode". I played that game with infinite stamina for the whole game and god mode for 70% of the game. I 100% the game and at no point did I feel my enjoyment of the game was affected because I wasn't being "challenged" and its still my favourite game this year. I would never call myself a bad gamer, just sometimes I want the journey to be non challenging.

Accessibility options don't affect anybody outside of those who choose to use them so when persons xyz get upset that people aren't playing the games the way they do just puzzles me.

For some reason the god mode of GoW was the opposite =p

I felt like a very weak but insistent human. Every low level enemy took over 12 hits to die while I died in less than 4. And at a point I needed over 17 to kill while only 2 to die the fodder, nevermind bosses.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."