Why do people get upset by OPTIONAL difficult assists?

[DonFerrari]

Mnementh said:

HoloDust said:

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.

Yeah, it is all about patience. Many people have learned to play fast action games and expect the Souls games to fall into that category. But they are slow, you should go into them patient. And that's the whole point. People going in guns blazing will think it is hard, people going in patient will think it is moderate in difficulty.

The antithesis is Serious Sam. Going in slow and deliberate probably leads to a subpar 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.

Yeah, but did anyone complain about this difficulty setting? Never heard any discussion. And this is the thesis of the OP, why get people upset. I don't think people get upset outside of Souls.

DonFerrari said:

I play mainly AAA games and I'm yet to find a game that disapointed me because they had multiple difficult selections or even a game I thought that got dumbed down and unpleasant because they made it to be mass market.

Most were Sony 1st party or exclusives and considering their praise I fail to see this unique view you and some others are seeing that AAA games are on a very bad situation due to panderizing to mass market.

Yeah, maybe you're part of that mass market and that's why you find no fault. That is OK by the way, nothing wrong with it. The only thing is you should accept that people have different preferences.

KLXVER said:

Its ok to suck at a game. Overcoming challenges are part of the fun.

Yeah, many people seem to forget that.

SvennoJ said:
Difficulty settings wouldn't be necessary if game AI would work like a good DM in the old table top RPGs. A good DM challenges the party, yet leaves a way out and will adjust difficulty on the fly not to kill off the party and end the game. Games need to figure out how to dynamically scale difficulty to challenge players from start to end without vertical learning curves or obstacles that become frustrating. Unless ofcourse you venture into an area you are not supposed to be in yet.

There are many ways to scale difficulty for example rubber banding has been used in arcade racing games for decades to keep races close. Online lobbies offer boost and increased drafting to keep racers together. The last of us also does something similar by throwing you much needed items when you get low. The AI director in Left 4 dead keeps the players on their toes. Unreal Tournament had a setting where players that run out ahead were handicapped by making them easier to hit, while doing the reverse to players that die a lot. In a game about learning patterns like Dark Souls, enemy speed can be flexible as well as hit windows and damage modifiers. A difficulty setting can determine how much the engine can scale the difficulty or not at all.

Rubber banding and adapted challenges are critized in it's own right. In many games part of the experience is to build the character and progress. If that is part of the game, you want to see, that in the beginning some challenges are impossible to beat, but if you come back later with an upgraded character they get a lot easier. If you adapt the challenge this feel of progression is lost.

JWeinCom said:

Uhhhhh... I was just discussing it... and not in terms of Dark Souls... and you just reacted as if I were talking about Dark Souls O_o...  I don't believe this topic was about Dark Souls at all originally.

It's like you're saying when people talk about fruits they're always talking about apples.  Then when someone talks about oranges, you're like, "no you're really talking about apples".

Ahem. So for which games are major discussions (not a single youtuber or something, but a bigger discussion) about the difficulty settings? This is the thesis of the OP and yours seemingly, but I fail to see impactful grumblings aside from Souls.

Eeeeerrrr I have been playing for the last 30 days and beat most of the hard games of the time. But if you want to consider me someone from mass market that can only finish games if they are easy ok. I'll excuse me from the burden of talking to elite player top ranker.

SvennoJ said:

Mnementh said:

Rubber banding and adapted challenges are critized in it's own right. In many games part of the experience is to build the character and progress. If that is part of the game, you want to see, that in the beginning some challenges are impossible to beat, but if you come back later with an upgraded character they get a lot easier. If you adapt the challenge this feel of progression is lost.

That;s why I said, unless you venture into areas you do not belong in yet. Skyrim had dynamic difficulty scaling, making sure some things don't become too easy yet also allowing you to get over powered if you wish.

I did 'abuse' the difficulty levels in The Witcher 3. I couldn't be bothered upgrading my character so I went to hunt the high level contracts on easy mode. Which was just about possible. Still hard, yet no need to grind to be able to get to the fun stuff. I don't enjoy backtracking all that much or quests piling up like a massive todo list. If you give me a lvl 40 quest when I'm lvl 20, that's the game's fault. Yet with being able to adjust difficulty on the fly I could keep my todo list in TW3 in check. The downside was that I out leveled story missions (so increase difficulty for those) yet the rewards were paltry as the quest levels were grey. 

It's always difficult to balance open world games, dynamic difficulty is the only way to do it. In BotW I ignored the initial directions and went North to the desert and mountains first. Then when I finally went to Koriko village it was all way too easy there, or rather very unbalanced. The random encounters scale up yet the standard area enemies were all down with one hit. I also cleared / explored the castle early in the game, fun challenge. Then when I finally got there to finish the game the whole thing was pretty meaningless challenge wise.

In my case I received level 40 mission while on 10, and the game was a slow slog that got me tired after 40h of playing. I really didn't like Witcher.

HoloDust said:

DonFerrari said:

I play mainly AAA games and I'm yet to find a game that disapointed me because they had multiple difficult selections or even a game I thought that got dumbed down and unpleasant because they made it to be mass market.

Most were Sony 1st party or exclusives and considering their praise I fail to see this unique view you and some others are seeing that AAA games are on a very bad situation due to panderizing to mass market.

Well then, good for you, I'm glad you're enoying them. I'm mostly dissapointed by AAA games and often tend to stay away from them, yet I occasionally make mistake, like recently with AC:OD.

SvennoJ said:

That;s why I said, unless you venture into areas you do not belong in yet. Skyrim had dynamic difficulty scaling, making sure some things don't become too easy yet also allowing you to get over powered if you wish.

I did 'abuse' the difficulty levels in The Witcher 3. I couldn't be bothered upgrading my character so I went to hunt the high level contracts on easy mode. Which was just about possible. Still hard, yet no need to grind to be able to get to the fun stuff. I don't enjoy backtracking all that much or quests piling up like a massive todo list. If you give me a lvl 40 quest when I'm lvl 20, that's the game's fault. Yet with being able to adjust difficulty on the fly I could keep my todo list in TW3 in check. The downside was that I out leveled story missions (so increase difficulty for those) yet the rewards were paltry as the quest levels were grey. 

It's always difficult to balance open world games, dynamic difficulty is the only way to do it. In BotW I ignored the initial directions and went North to the desert and mountains first. Then when I finally went to Koriko village it was all way too easy there, or rather very unbalanced. The random encounters scale up yet the standard area enemies were all down with one hit. I also cleared / explored the castle early in the game, fun challenge. Then when I finally got there to finish the game the whole thing was pretty meaningless challenge wise.

And that's why, when it comes to fusion of story and exploration, from my POV, semi-open worlds will always be vastly superior...at least until your first point is solved in video games.

I had a mini-rant about tabletop RPG experience yesterday in PC thread - that eventually we'll get good narrative AI that can handle game like proper GM and that (in addition to proper physics on everything) we'll get video game RPG that can match or even surpass tabletop RPGs.

Yet, even then I think narrow scaling will work better - cause some things are just difficult and should not be adjusted much. Come later when your're ready, and game's AI GM will allow for whichever approach you might choose to solve it, if it makes sense and your character can pull it of.

Enjoy yourself playing old games and indies for the rest of your gaming life if you so much wishes.