By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Star Fox Zero adds invincible mode for beginners, internet reacts

 

Does this actually bother anyone here?

No 217 67.18%
 
Sort of 30 9.29%
 
YEs 46 14.24%
 
Other explain below 2 0.62%
 
see results 28 8.67%
 
Total:323
Wright on 15 March 2016

Might as well add a mode where the game plays itself without the need of player-input. You get the gratification of beating a game without the need of effort!



Around the Network
Qwark on 15 March 2016

Even though I would never even come near to such a mode, it doesn't take any effort and it isn't obligatory in any way. Besides it's not that is a game that is intended to be hard in the first place. Not every game is dark souls or the Witcher 3, which need some skill to complete (if you turn it on hard mode it is).



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

curl-6 on 15 March 2016
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
curl-6 said:

If you must see it as a learning process, then this is still learning. You learn what lies ahead so you can then use that knowledge to inform a later playthrough without invincibility. Observing and adapting, that's learning. It can also help you learn the controls while you're observing. Punishment isn't an essential component of the learning process.

While that maybe true, the onus is on the developer/designer to make an option like that unnecessary, or at the very least design the game or option around it.

I'm reminded by practice mode in DDR which is nearly the same thing, which I used extensively while playing it.

The subtle difference is that there isn't a reward for completing a song in practice mode, its sole purpose is teaching because the reward is some parts actually beating the song itself, points, and other unlocakables. Here its justified.

Granted the details aren't clear on whether or not the game can be "cleared" in invicible mode, but if that is the case you are rewarded for just effectively nothing and a lot of the incentive to even play the game in a non invicible mode is lost. That is an option, do I agree with it? No. That's simply my stance on the matter.

And Punishment might not be essential to learning process, Reward might not be either, but it certainly makes things more engaging and interesting, which are certainly prime aspects of Fun.

Negative reinforcement isn't an essential component of the learning process though.

And seeing what comes next in terms of the next stage or boss can be its own reward. Not everyone needs to be challenged to have fun.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 15 March 2016
Qwark said:

Even though I would never even come near to such a mode, it doesn't take any effort and it isn't obligatory in any way. Besides it's not that is a game that is intended to be hard in the first place. Not every game is dark souls or the Witcher 3, which need some skill to complete (if you turn it on hard mode it is).

Part of me disagrees with the concept of difficulty modes entirely. But generally, I see it as simply an option as well. But a mode that, and I don't use this term lightly, lazily removes all the challenge from the game imo can't be respected on principle. If this were a spectrum, this would be on the other extreme of my (one mode view).



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 15 March 2016
curl-6 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

While that maybe true, the onus is on the developer/designer to make an option like that unnecessary, or at the very least design the game or option around it.

I'm reminded by practice mode in DDR which is nearly the same thing, which I used extensively while playing it.

The subtle difference is that there isn't a reward for completing a song in practice mode, its sole purpose is teaching because the reward is some parts actually beating the song itself, points, and other unlocakables. Here its justified.

Granted the details aren't clear on whether or not the game can be "cleared" in invicible mode, but if that is the case you are rewarded for just effectively nothing and a lot of the incentive to even play the game in a non invicible mode is lost. That is an option, do I agree with it? No. That's simply my stance on the matter.

And Punishment might not be essential to learning process, Reward might not be either, but it certainly makes things more engaging and interesting, which are certainly prime aspects of Fun.

Negative reinforcement isn't an essential component of the learning process though.

And seeing what comes next in terms of the next stage or boss can be its own reward. Not everyone needs to be challenged to have fun.

That's exactly what I have a problem with. Reward for no reason. Regardless of whether or not you're being challenged, if you're not engaged with the game, its unlikely you're having fun with it either. 

Its the eternal debate of participation ribbons. The only thing your being "rewarded" for is purchasing the game and pressing start.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network
curl-6 on 15 March 2016
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
curl-6 said:

Negative reinforcement isn't an essential component of the learning process though.

And seeing what comes next in terms of the next stage or boss can be its own reward. Not everyone needs to be challenged to have fun.

That's exactly what I have a problem with. Reward for no reason. Regardless of whether or not you're being challenged, if you're not engaged with the game, its unlikely you're having fun with it either. 

Its the eternal debate of participation ribbons. The only thing your being "rewarded" for is purchasing the game and pressing start.

If people have paid money for a product, I'd say they're allowed to have fun with it the way they want.

Why should they have to jump through hoops to conform to what you find fun?



JRPGfan on 15 March 2016
RJ_Sizzle said:
Why would you need this? What's the purpose of buying a game if it doesn't present some sort of challenge?

distraction for those too young to play video games.

Take baby, place him infront of tv, get him to mash buttons.... watch him beat the game, and have fun hitting the gamepad buttons.



RJ_Sizzle on 15 March 2016
JRPGfan said:
RJ_Sizzle said:
Why would you need this? What's the purpose of buying a game if it doesn't present some sort of challenge?

distraction for those too young to play video games.

Take baby, place him infront of tv, get him to mash buttons.... watch him beat the game, and have fun hitting the gamepad buttons.

Who would leave a baby in front of a video game for that long?



Kotastic on 15 March 2016

Why do people care if it's optional?



Player2 on 15 March 2016
Wright said:

Might as well add a mode where the game plays itself without the need of player-input. You get the gratification of beating a game without the need of effort!

That won't work, you have to give the player the false impression that they're accomplishing something even if they play like garbage, that's why games are plagued with things like auto-aim, jump assist, regen health or have checkpoints every five minutes.

On the other hand playing in "beginner" mode requires oneself to accept that you aren't any good, hence the backlash.