Quantcast
Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

Ka-pi96 said:
Nautilus said:

Well, Im sorry that you had that experience, but thats simply not true.For example, I had neither the problems you just mentioned.Sure, I had more problems with some enemies than others, but other than that the experience was simply wonderful.

But that was exactly why I explicitly said it was critically aclaimed.Because the score average of the reviews given to the game is the closest thing we have to impartiality.Comparing personal experiences, in this case, is useless.Simply because one might find a determined experience horendous, while the other might think its the best thing ever.(Because opinions are like ass;Everyone has one)And before you say " Thats why it needs dificulty options!", I'll say that this exact problem goes back to the point I made in the thread.Its either financially impossible, due to having to rebalance the entire game, or its simply way too expensive.

The sentence in bold: And that's fine!Not every game is for everyone, and if one day one of your friends become more experienced with games, he will try it.Simple as that.

I always find this line of thinking hilarious. "Let's not compare our personal experiences because they're useless, but let's compare other people's personal experiences because... reasons".

Reviews aren't impartial or objective. They're just opinions. And they certainly aren't worth any more than other people's opinions just because they're posted on a website or in a magazine. Actually, I'd argue they're worth less than your own personal opinions. I mean, if you're debating something then surely the opinions of the people actually involved in the debate are far more relevant than the opinions of some rando.

Why is it funny?Reviews have been a thing since forever.It's made from people that dedicate their times to seeing the quality of a product so we have more information about it and make an informed purchase.I don't see how funny that is.

If the discussion was about your own personal experience about difficulties and such then yeah, reviews would hold small weight compared to your own personal opinion.But thats the point: It's not about you.We are discussing about how difficult games should remain unchanged for their games, affecting everyone.In this context, the aggregate of "official" reviews are more important, because they better represent the overall public opinion of a game.Or are you saying that your opinion alone is more important than hundreds of one to the general public, and we should just ignore them because they are trash?

Otherwise I could easily say: "I am of the opinion that hard games are the best and no easy game should exist.There, my opinion is absolute.End of discussion".And, as you should have guessed, that's not how a discussion works.



Around the Network
Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

The fact that you didn't experienced it doesn't make it false.

The opposite is also true though.

If he experienced then the game have it. Unless you are claiming he is lying.

Unless he said everyone experience it, then you not experiencing could invalidate his point.



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

Nautilus said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I always find this line of thinking hilarious. "Let's not compare our personal experiences because they're useless, but let's compare other people's personal experiences because... reasons".

Reviews aren't impartial or objective. They're just opinions. And they certainly aren't worth any more than other people's opinions just because they're posted on a website or in a magazine. Actually, I'd argue they're worth less than your own personal opinions. I mean, if you're debating something then surely the opinions of the people actually involved in the debate are far more relevant than the opinions of some rando.

Why is it funny?Reviews have been a thing since forever.It's made from people that dedicate their times to seeing the quality of a product so we have more information about it and make an informed purchase.I don't see how funny that is.

If the discussion was about your own personal experience about difficulties and such then yeah, reviews would hold small weight compared to your own personal opinion.But thats the point: It's not about you.We are discussing about how difficult games should remain unchanged for their games, affecting everyone.In this context, the aggregate of "official" reviews are more important, because they better represent the overall public opinion of a game.Or are you saying that your opinion alone is more important than hundreds of one to the general public, and we should just ignore them because they are trash?

Otherwise I could easily say: "I am of the opinion that hard games are the best and no easy game should exist.There, my opinion is absolute.End of discussion".And, as you should have guessed, that's not how a discussion works.

It's always funny when people try to use review scores to "prove" something. I mean, you're the one that said opinions are like assholes. Well a bunch of assholes are just as bad (probably worse in actuality) than a single asshole. Of course their weight is subjective to, so if some people want to hold them up as the holy grail then they're welcome to (they should also expect to be mocked for that though. Pretty sure there was a thread a little while ago about somebody that based all their purchasing decisions on review scores, needless to say they got mocked a bit for that.), but to me they're worth absolutely fuck all. The opinion of any random user on this site would be worth more to me than every single reviewer put together.

Besides, the whole review score angle is kind of moot anyway considering you can like something and still want more options in it, it doesn't have to be one or the other. That's even the whole point of DLC. People like something but still want more options. The lack of those options in the first place doesn't make them dislike the game (usually at least, some people do get pissed, and often rightly so, when stuff that is released later that they think could've been in the base game), and their addition later also doesn't make them dislike the game (again, usually at least. Pay to win stuff and predatory DLC practices are good ways to get people to stop liking a game).



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

The opposite is also true though.

If he experienced then the game have it. Unless you are claiming he is lying.

Unless he said everyone experience it, then you not experiencing could invalidate his point.

I'm not the only one that experienced it. When I was looking online for help it was common to read that magic was unbalanced in dark souls. Perhaps if you only use sword and shield the game might be very balanced, it wasn't for my play style. As a result I didn't enjoy any of the boss battles and pretty much always had to summon online help (in the form of a tank) to keep the boss busy (or kill it in a couple blows if it was online help from someone way ahead)

Dark souls 2 was better with the bosses, or I was more prepared this time and had more of a balanced player (or rather over powered by grinding early to stay ahead of the difficulty curve) Anyway the souls games were good because of the exploration and world building, combat only sporadically felt satisfying leaving it up to the player to figure out the sweet spot to be in on the not all that smooth difficulty curve. A responsibility of the player to play it 'right'