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?

Baddman said:
DonFerrari said:

which of them?

People who get upset about optional difficulty assist. 

Agree, it have 0 impact on me. GoW doesn't have any difficult attached trophy so no one would really no the difference between a plat for someone playing on easiest versus hardest, still I don't feel mine lost value.

spemanig said:

Personally, while I don't mind it on some games, I do mind it on others. I do think that when your target demo is children or those unfamiliar with games, a bit of experiential prioritization is needed. I do think however that there are games where the experience is effected by the difficulty, and I don't at all believe in this democratic notion that everybody is entitled to their own satisfying experience. When the literature is in the mechanics, don't touch the mechanics.

I always liken it to that - literature. I do not, for example, think that someone who does not have the reading comprehension necessary to comprehend Shakespeare should get to enjoy the narratives in Shakespeare because there is such a large part of understanding the narrative that lies within the way the words are strung together. Macbeth is not a good story because of the revenge plot - but people who sparknote it will only see it as a story about revenge. You are losing a lot of information that is important by neutering these kinds of details, and I think the same category of detail lies in the complexity of mechanics present in a challenging game.

The argument to this is, obviously, let people ruin their experience. But that's where I absolutely don't budge. I do not believe anyone is entitled to finishing an experience they are not ready for. There are plenty of games made to cater to you. A game like Uncharted for example frankly is not very mechanically complex. There is not a lot that lowering the difficulty can do to change what that game means, so you can have an adult story there for people who are not very good at games. There are a lot of games like this, but there are a lot that are not, and if you want to enjoy them, you should work up to the ability to get there. And if you can't, tough. Not everything in the world has to be made for you to enjoy.

There is an overall lack of appreciation and understanding for what difficulty is, how it functions, and where its value lies that always cause nonsense debates like this to crop up. That and how games are look at as products for a consumer instead of art from an artist.

Sorry but on the point of complexity neither is Dark Souls nor even GoW (which I had someone talking how its combos were deep and needed to finish the game on the hardest difficult). I have platted all available GoW on PS3 and PS4 (double sometimes) and even GoW PS4 I was able finish the game with basic roll, parry archery. That isn't complex at all, and Souls game are similar or timing your dodge/parry to counter while being patient and managing stamina.

You wouldn't lose anything if anyone else is able to play the game nerfed as I didn't lost my enjoyment of Give me God of War because my 4y son is playing on Give me a Story.



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."

omarct said:
HoloDust said:

When you put it that way...sure. The thing is, from my observation at least, it's impossible to balance games for wide difficulty scaling and preserve intended expereince. Eventually, you get games that are trying to be more "accessible" where that "accessibility" creeps into every design decision, no matter the level....right about every AAA game these days is guilty of that. To the pojnt of whole genres being hijacked and completely diluted.

Like i said I think that narrow scaling can work in some games. I don't really expect any AAA publisher to implement it though, mass market is there audience and they are designing games for mass market. Nothing inherently wrong with that, there are plenty of people who like those games. Just as it's nothing wrong with those who have other priorities offfering their games "as is", and it's up to each person to decide if it's for them or not...and git gud...or not.

I agree with you. My experience with difficulty setting has never been very pleasant. I enjoy learning how to play the game so I tend go for higher difficulties as I know that nowdays "normal difficulty" just means stroll through the game without ever dying. The problem is that games are never really balanced around the Hard difficulty, so what ends up happening is you have games like Skyrim, where any difficulty lower than legendary is piss easy, but when you set it to legendary you are pretty much forced to use a bow or magic as meele combat will almost always get you instant killed by any somewhat strong monster. 

So because the games are not balanced around higher difficulties, these difficulties ttend to force the player to play a certain way such as using gimmicks or a certain overpowered item or weapon and are usually more frustrating than difficult. Yet lower difficulties are just as silly, if you see any casual gamer play games you will see how there is no thought process behind any of their actions, they just stroll forward and bash their head against whatever pops up.

As far as the souls games goes I think they shouldn't have any difficulty setting. If anything maybe they could add a "never die" setting which would be as easy as turning a switch and your character can never die. Yet I feel like what the hell is the point of playing the game then? This is what I dont understand from these "easy" difficulty people who want to play Souls games, the whole point of that game is dying and overcoming the odds by learning and getting better. There is no great story, or great social interactions or anything like that. The games are purely about the gameplay so why would the gamers who dont care about gameplay want to play it? Other than to make themselves feel like they can do it too or something. Not much different than the players who dont want to lower the difficulty because the feel it is an achievement to have beat the games and it shouldnt be handed down to others who didnt want to put in any effort.

SO basically I think this debate is about the whole movement nowadays where people think they deserve everything and everything should be given to them without any effort on their part. It is why micro-transactions are rampant, it is why world of warcraft was ruined years ago and also one of many factors that are responsible for the terrible state of the game industry today. 

Yeah, I couldn't agree more, that's precisely what I was getting at. IMO it's impossible for many games (or even genres) to balance wide difficulty scaling, and these days one that is most balanced is usually developers normal - and that in current AAA climate translates to piss easy. That's why I will always take one set difficulty approach, cause that is what dev had in mind creating their game - honestly, I don't give a toss for any entitled player whining  that everything needs to be suited to their needs. so I'm happy that there are still devs that think the same way.

To make comparison to boardgaming, I wouldn't touch something like Advanced Squad Leader with a ten foot pole - but I'm very happy that it exists and that it is what it is.

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Some people fear that once they start adding optional helps, devs won't stop and they'll go far beyond them and dumb the whole game down.

Unfortunately, I'd say that already happens on regular bases, to the point that even whole genres have been dumbed down.



Lol I swear I must be one of the few people who just doesn't think dark souls is that hard or complex. I'll never forget being like "this is the hard game ppl are going crazy about?"



Baddman said:
Lol I swear I must be one of the few people who just doesn't think dark souls is that hard or complex. I'll never forget being like "this is the hard game ppl are going crazy about?"

It's not hard - my 10 year old son finished it - he just had to learn to be patient, vigilant and most importantly how to manage stamina.
I don't think he would learn any of that if there was an AAA alike easy mode.



HoloDust said:
omarct said:

I agree with you. My experience with difficulty setting has never been very pleasant. I enjoy learning how to play the game so I tend go for higher difficulties as I know that nowdays "normal difficulty" just means stroll through the game without ever dying. The problem is that games are never really balanced around the Hard difficulty, so what ends up happening is you have games like Skyrim, where any difficulty lower than legendary is piss easy, but when you set it to legendary you are pretty much forced to use a bow or magic as meele combat will almost always get you instant killed by any somewhat strong monster. 

So because the games are not balanced around higher difficulties, these difficulties ttend to force the player to play a certain way such as using gimmicks or a certain overpowered item or weapon and are usually more frustrating than difficult. Yet lower difficulties are just as silly, if you see any casual gamer play games you will see how there is no thought process behind any of their actions, they just stroll forward and bash their head against whatever pops up.

As far as the souls games goes I think they shouldn't have any difficulty setting. If anything maybe they could add a "never die" setting which would be as easy as turning a switch and your character can never die. Yet I feel like what the hell is the point of playing the game then? This is what I dont understand from these "easy" difficulty people who want to play Souls games, the whole point of that game is dying and overcoming the odds by learning and getting better. There is no great story, or great social interactions or anything like that. The games are purely about the gameplay so why would the gamers who dont care about gameplay want to play it? Other than to make themselves feel like they can do it too or something. Not much different than the players who dont want to lower the difficulty because the feel it is an achievement to have beat the games and it shouldnt be handed down to others who didnt want to put in any effort.

SO basically I think this debate is about the whole movement nowadays where people think they deserve everything and everything should be given to them without any effort on their part. It is why micro-transactions are rampant, it is why world of warcraft was ruined years ago and also one of many factors that are responsible for the terrible state of the game industry today. 

Yeah, I couldn't agree more, that's precisely what I was getting at. IMO it's impossible for many games (or even genres) to balance wide difficulty scaling, and these days one that is most balanced is usually developers normal - and that in current AAA climate translates to piss easy. That's why I will always take one set difficulty approach, cause that is what dev had in mind creating their game - honestly, I don't give a toss for any entitled player whining  that everything needs to be suited to their needs. so I'm happy that there are still devs that think the same way.

To make comparison to boardgaming, I wouldn't touch something like Advanced Squad Leader with a ten foot pole - but I'm very happy that it exists and that it is what it is.

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Some people fear that once they start adding optional helps, devs won't stop and they'll go far beyond them and dumb the whole game down.

Unfortunately, I'd say that already happens on regular bases, to the point that even whole genres have been dumbed down.

Aren't you acting entitled when you "don't want my experience tarnished by a easy option for others to enjoy"?



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."

Celeste is one of the most magnificent and rewarding platformers I've ever played. On the hardest levels, you need precise skill, timing and reflexes. I felt like a God when clearing the ultimate challenges.
There's an optional difficulty setting that allows people to win for free and experience the solid story. That allows players to have fun and it certainly didn't take away from my experience.



morenoingrato said:
Celeste is one of the most magnificent and rewarding platformers I've ever played. On the hardest levels, you need precise skill, timing and reflexes. I felt like a God when clearing the ultimate challenges.
There's an optional difficulty setting that allows people to win for free and experience the solid story. That allows players to have fun and it certainly didn't take away from my experience.

I was hearing about Celeste on a podcast just now kkkk



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:
HoloDust said:

Yeah, I couldn't agree more, that's precisely what I was getting at. IMO it's impossible for many games (or even genres) to balance wide difficulty scaling, and these days one that is most balanced is usually developers normal - and that in current AAA climate translates to piss easy. That's why I will always take one set difficulty approach, cause that is what dev had in mind creating their game - honestly, I don't give a toss for any entitled player whining  that everything needs to be suited to their needs. so I'm happy that there are still devs that think the same way.

To make comparison to boardgaming, I wouldn't touch something like Advanced Squad Leader with a ten foot pole - but I'm very happy that it exists and that it is what it is.

Aren't you acting entitled when you "don't want my experience tarnished by a easy option for others to enjoy"?

Not at all. As I said, I don't mind difficulty scaling, if it's fairly narrow. But once you get to AAA levels of scaling, game designs tend to fall apart - and that is current norm in industry.
If you're happy with that state of industry, that's perfectly fine by me. I'm not and I'm happy there are devs that think the same.



HoloDust said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Some people fear that once they start adding optional helps, devs won't stop and they'll go far beyond them and dumb the whole game down.

Unfortunately, I'd say that already happens on regular bases, to the point that even whole genres have been dumbed down.

Did someone say The Elder Scrolls?



Its fine to add an easy mode. Just don't ask me every time I die if I want help...