Are Gamers Too Spoiled these Days? | |||
| Yes | 58 | 54.21% | |
| No | 49 | 45.79% | |
| Total: | 107 | ||
| SpokenTruth said: *Start game* **Achievement unlocked** Do I really need to say anything more? |
Thats intentional. Developers do it to initiate metrics on how many people start a game vs continuing on to earn the others.
Nautilus said:
I think you of overexagerated my statement, but yeah, when I play some games I feel like a harder difficulty could have the game made better.Dont get me wrong, Im not really against multiple difficulties, but I feel like sometimes developers are forced to do that just because they are afraid that people will bail out of the game while playing it, and games where directors have envisioned to have,for example, the hard difficulty setting(out of a easy, normal, and hard) as the default one, have to compromise just to catter to this audience that is bigger than the hardcore audience just to sell copies. I would be fine if they put in the descriptions of the difficulties a warning like "This difficulty(be it easy, normal, hard, or super hard) is the one that was considerated to be played by the team".Instead, they just say things like this is for begginers, and this is for experienced playerrs, but that is really relative to how much experienced or noob the player is.In other words, not definitive.And that in my opinion would be the waste of my time.But again, thats just my opinion |
There's no compromising. Because the mode that the team "envisioned" is there. Compromised would mean the mode is gone, or fused with easy. Censorship, sales problem etc. You are not gonna care how many people played on this mode or that mode. Just that you got the $60. You can only bitch that they had to do more work, to program the other modes. Your way is basically trying to dictate only this way is how to play a game. If people want to beat gannon with only bombs, they do it. I want to max out Link and play the duegons in order, to defeat gannon. That is my option.
How about I tell you to stop cropping TV shows to 16:9. When they were only shot in 4:3. That was the envosined frame. And I can't stand when companies or people do that. But I know people hate bars. I would never say "OMFG PEOPLE ARE GONNA NOT SEE WHAT WAS INTENDED!" If the company releases both 4:3 and a 16:9 version. Or if someone just uses the TV's built in cropper. I'm gonna give two shits. I have my version. And people who hate bars can have theirs.
And this would benefit the other people. Just maybe. If you don't get pissed off at the game. You'd go back and actually play it on hard. Instead of raging, selling the game off. Or never playing it again. Because I expect the game kick my ass, in hard mode. I played the Ninja Gaiden demo on my DS. Then I watched AVGN and other reviewers play the NES games. I never went near, or read info on a Gaiden game again.
Take Resident Evil. I played that game to death. I eventually played every mode. And hard mode disconnects the linked storage bins. And makes less ribbons etc. I was annoyed, yeah. But I was happily playing and busting my ass in the game. Because I fell in love with the series. If the games default setup was on hard. I would of walked away from the franchise. Imagine in hard mode, for RE4. Ashley would die when you shot an enemy. Because she falls on the floor and breaks her leg. So now you have to deal with her limping. Or waste herbs. It's harder yeah. But you'd fucking give up.
What Zelda does is stupid. The main quests are annoying. But the Boss battles are stupidly easy. That's wrong. Because the game should have a difficulty setting then. That is a vaily complaint. And I want Zelda to get a difficulty choice. Because of this. The hand holding aspect. I'm indifferent. Because It's easier make the secrets fairliy easy. So people can figure it out. Or just hand hold. Because people are just gonna go to gamefaqs and find the info. That is handholding regardless. Finding how to evolve certain evee's is an example of this info, that should be told. Because I'm just gonna go to gamefaqs for it. And not waste my time. The original games just needed a stone. The later games added extra steps. And forests. I'm not gonna figure that out.
VXIII said:
I honestly don't see how is that different from what I'm trying to say. There is always a way to avoid the attacks, you just have to figure it out as you try any fail because it is not always obvious. Like in Seth's battle. It is a design choice to let's the player die, but learn by trying something different in the process. Ceaseless Discharge fight had a "cheap kill" that is true, but it is optional, hidden, and makes sense if you paid attention to who the level was designed. I don't think anyone would figure it out without watching a guide or something. However it is not how it is supposed to be. He fell in a very deep valley of lava (1:45) btw. He was not standing after he made the jump. Agreed to the Bed of Chaos though. It is unconventional platformer kind of fight, like Dragon God from Demou's souls. I personally hated those. Nothing against platformer kind of fight, but I think it doesn't fit skill based game like Souls. |
The problem is that for DS1 the logic is disjointed in those fights. It's not about learning enemy movement patterns in those cases above. It's about having much needed knowledge that require great leaps of logic. I'd be very suprised if anybody beat Seth or bed of chaos on their first try. I'd have to call shenanigans.
Lube Me Up
| patronmacabre said: No, for the most part. There are difficulty settings in most games for a reason. Some people lack the manual dexterity to play certain games on harder settings. There's absolutely no reason, from any standpoint, to exclude them. I remember my dad being really interested when I was playing Bloodborne last year. It made me kind of sad telling him that there was absolutely no way he would be able to play it. |
You arrogant son =p ... well play together and have he watching
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."
| KLXVER said: Games used to be about overcoming challenges. Now its about everyone can do it. |
Games have always been about making money.
"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"
archer9234 said:
There's no compromising. Because the mode that the team "envisioned" is there. Compromised would mean the mode is gone, or fused with easy. Censorship, sales problem etc. You are not gonna care how many people played on this mode or that mode. Just that you got the $60. You can only bitch that they had to do more work, to program the other modes. Your way is basically trying to dictate only this way is how to play a game. If people want to beat gannon with only bombs, they do it. I want to max out Link and play the duegons in order, to defeat gannon. That is my option. How about I tell you to stop cropping TV shows to 16:9. When they were only shot in 4:3. That was the envosined frame. And I can't stand when companies or people do that. But I know people hate bars. I would never say "OMFG PEOPLE ARE GONNA NOT SEE WHAT WAS INTENDED!" If the company releases both 4:3 and a 16:9 version. Or if someone just uses the TV's built in cropper. I'm gonna give two shits. I have my version. And people who hate bars can have theirs. And this would benefit the other people. Just maybe. If you don't get pissed off at the game. You'd go back and actually play it on hard. Instead of raging, selling the game off. Or never playing it again. Because I expect the game kick my ass, in hard mode. I played the Ninja Gaiden demo on my DS. Then I watched AVGN and other reviewers play the NES games. I never went near, or read info on a Gaiden game again. Take Resident Evil. I played that game to death. I eventually played every mode. And hard mode disconnects the linked storage bins. And makes less ribbons etc. I was annoyed, yeah. But I was happily playing and busting my ass in the game. Because I fell in love with the series. If the games default setup was on hard. I would of walked away from the franchise. Imagine in hard mode, for RE4. Ashley would die when you shot an enemy. Because she falls on the floor and breaks her leg. So now you have to deal with her limping. Or waste herbs. It's harder yeah. But you'd fucking give up. What Zelda does is stupid. The main quests are annoying. But the Boss battles are stupidly easy. That's wrong. Because the game should have a difficulty setting then. That is a vaily complaint. And I want Zelda to get a difficulty choice. Because of this. The hand holding aspect. I'm indifferent. Because It's easier make the secrets fairliy easy. So people can figure it out. Or just hand hold. Because people are just gonna go to gamefaqs and find the info. That is handholding regardless. Finding how to evolve certain evee's is an example of this info, that should be told. Because I'm just gonna go to gamefaqs for it. And not waste my time. The original games just needed a stone. The later games added extra steps. And forests. I'm not gonna figure that out. |
Well, each to its own.I personally still feel that games are made too easy now, being part consequence of what type of new gamers we have now.Maybe what you said is right, that while I do believe games in general have been made easier because of the gamers we now have, the not having a standart difficulty in mind and doing multiple difficulty settings.But it kind of makes me sad.As I stated before, I like easier games, in that you dont have to spend hours and hours on one section trying to figure things out, but even in the hardest difficulty, I fell that games lacks a challenge that I personally believe would make the game better, and people in general would enjoy it more.The 3DS Mario and Luigi games for example.I beat them both without dying once!And that in the highest difficulty possible!I know those games arent hard by nature, but i remember having a harder time in the earlier games.And its not just those, and even though I dont remember now, im sure that i had similar experiences with many other games.The problem is that not only the normal difficulty, which I always consider the standard for which the developer have in mind while making the game, is easy, but the highest difficulty is not hard either.
If the developers got their shit together, and made the easy difficulty truly easy, the normal a difficutly that you should have problems but manages to get through, and hard a mode where you get your ass kicked, and label them accordingly(as like, this is the difficulty intended to play, and this is just to breeze through the game and so on), I wouldnt have so much problems with it.But as things stand now, I personally think its kind of a joke when a game makes a "hard" mode.
As a side note, it seems nowadays games are getting this subject right.Games on hard mode seems hard, and on easy seems, well, easy.I just wish developers werent that afraid to make more challeging games, like the souls series, or the megaman games of old, and making them hard on purpose(but obviosly fair), because there is a big market for people like me.
My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
