Why do people get upset by OPTIONAL difficult assists?

[DonFerrari]

Mnementh said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

Sorry what? My whole post was about different gaming tastes and that there are and should be games for different tastes and THAT is elitist? I am actually not for the hard difficulty. But as I and others said many times, Dark Souls isn't that hard, it just needs a different approach. You and others here basically say, that games shouldn't be produced for my tastes, that my tastes don't count, yet I am the elitist, not you?

For years I was very unsatisfied with gaming. This was, because most games only tended to the biggest markets available, and niches fell out of view. Luckily we got the indie explosion. Many indies are filling the niches of gameplay and concepts the big AAA stuff avoids, because they need the bigger markets to recoup there costs. That's why I often have more fun with indies. Not always, my tastes partly overlap with the mass market, but partly not. I find it quite disturbing, that you say, there should be no games for me, only ones for you.

And if you read my posts, you would've seen I have nothing against difficulty settings, I only say it solves not the problem of the complainers about Souls. Because Souls is not difficult, it just plays differently. And I like Souls for being differently.

The elitism came from your presuntion that because I have no issue with the AAA I play I'm mainstream on a way that really looked like arrogance. I play games from different difficult levels from very niche to mainstream appeal.

Nope I didn't say games shouldn't be made to your or anyone else taste. What we have said is that the gaming having more options don't take away from you and people aren't DEMANDING they are REQUESTING (very different thing), and when you and others say it can't have and people should play other things but not touch your game then you are being the elitist.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the very definition of niche is to be out of view, if niche games had big market they wouldn't be niche they would be mainstream. What you could complain is that the games you like are niche so they have low production value or quantity produced.

I couldn't care less if Souls don't get an easy mode and again never said there shouldn't be games for you. I never play CoD, Fifa and other best sellers and am quite sad that they get much more attention and sales than the games I like, but I have long accepted that there are people that like them and that is fine, so I don't ask those games to not be made so people pay attention to the type of games I like.

You and I may think the game isn't hard. But you can't deny that if a mode with more damage dealt and less damage taken wouldn't be very easy to implement, would make more people try to play it and wouldn't remove anything from your enjoyment.

HoloDust said:

Why thank you kind sir, I actually do mostly prefer (and have been for all of my 40+ years of gaming) non-AAA games, often in more niche genres, and luckily for me computers have always been home to most of them, so I tend to stick to that.

From time to time there is a good AAA game, but like anything else, they fall under Sturgeon's Law ("ninety percent of everything is crap") as well, and considering there are (relatively) so few of them...well, you get the picture...

40+ years. Nice, you beat easily my 25+ years of gaming. And for DonFerrari: If I had to play old games and indies for the rest of my life I would lose only a few interesting games, and looking at my backlog I would be fully content with that. I have so many interesting DOS games yet to play, and as I never was a console player in the old days, so many games and game series I never even saw. And Indies producing some of the most interesting games these days.

I have no doubt you would have plenty games to play, me too. I have been playing for over 30 years so I have enjoyed the old games as well, I have no desire to be stuck on the past, but if gaming ended today I would still be able to play for the rest of my life with what I have.

DonFerrari said:

Sure I get the picture, there are a lot of people with different tastes among them. And some of those like titles that most don't, and thank god VG is so diverse that this people can still find enough content to please their heart and playing time.

Exactly. So why people demanding every game should please their tastes (which implies they shouldn't be there for different tastes)?

Who is demanding that every game should please their tastes? Reaching much? The discussion is on people that are totally against having easier difficults for games. When I was 6 I played Castle of Illusion at easiest several times, when the remaster came to playstation 3 I played it on hardest. Have not a difficult setting be available there I probably wouldn't have nostalgia about the game.

 

Mummelmann said:
Optional difficulty assists are fine by me, what I take issue with are games designed at the core for what appears to be idiots. Or assists you can't really turn off since it makes the game unplayable due to the lackluster controls (*cough* RDR2 *cough*).

RDR2 is a great game with very bad gameplay =p