Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do people get upset by OPTIONAL difficult assists?

From the Super Guide in the NSMB and DKCR/Tropical Freeze games to the invincibility mode in Starfox Zero, to the mere suggestion that maybe the addition of a more forgiving difficulty setting might open up the Souls series to more players, there always seems to be an uproar at the thought of allowing players with a lower skill level to enjoy a game as well.

My question is, why is this? Such allowances are optional. Nothing is being forced on more skilled players. They can choose to simply never touch these assists. It doesn't affect them. So why the outrage? 

Last edited by curl-6 - on 11 December 2018

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network

Because it's an attack on their e-penis.



The Souls games are a terrible example of this. The quality of those games is largely reliant on the ability to have fun by getting over difficulty curves. If someone played a Souls game on easy not only would they miss the point of the game largely, but they would probably enjoy it less too. Not every game is for everyone - and one thing that sticks out about the example regarding the Souls games is that it's never a wish of the developers or the fanbase for there to be an easy mode, it's always the wish of people the game was never catering to to begin with. At least with the Nintendo games you gave as an example it is an actual want of the developers to provide player assist.

The other games you listed had no real outrage as to their player assist so I don't really know what you mean? I do know that people would mention how they didn't like using the mode, but then they just wouldn't use it. The most recent example of outrage might be Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, but that was because that game can be quite competitive and allowing an AI to help the player steer can potentially be frustrating for other players. Though, I've never seen anyone actually complain about it's use, just the theory around the idea, and so again on that end there wasn't a big outrage about it.



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
The Souls games are a terrible example of this. The quality of those games is largely reliant on the ability to have fun by getting over difficulty curves. If someone played a Souls game on easy not only would they miss the point of the game largely, but they would probably enjoy it less too. Not every game is for everyone - and one thing that sticks out about the example regarding the Souls games is that it's never a wish of the developers or the fanbase for there to be an easy mode, it's always the wish of people the game was never catering to to begin with.

That may be how you want to enjoy the game, but others might enjoy it a different way, and that takes nothing away from you. For less skilled players, a slightly easier mode would still be challenging anyway, hence they'd still get the experience without being totally locked out. Existing players can keep playing it the way they always have, the devs make more sales and more money, new players get to enjoy it, it's literally a pure win with absolutely zero downside.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 11 December 2018

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Because, it's essentially the game telling you, "You suck!" It's a shot right to the Saiyan's pride.



Pancho A. Ovies

Nintendo Switch in Japan (Famitsu): 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=238945&page=2

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239387

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
The Souls games are a terrible example of this. The quality of those games is largely reliant on the ability to have fun by getting over difficulty curves. If someone played a Souls game on easy not only would they miss the point of the game largely, but they would probably enjoy it less too. Not every game is for everyone - and one thing that sticks out about the example regarding the Souls games is that it's never a wish of the developers or the fanbase for there to be an easy mode, it's always the wish of people the game was never catering to to begin with.

That may be how you want to enjoy the game, but others might enjoy it a different way, and that takes nothing away from you. For less skilled player, a slightly easier mode would still be challenging, hence they'd still get the experience without being locked out. Existing players can keep playing it the way they always have, the devs make more sales and more money, new players get to enjoy it, it's literally a pure win with absolutely zero downside.

That is a hilarious way to see it because it takes the idea that it affects no one else whilst literally putting aside the wishes of both the developers and the community. Like I just said - at least the Nintendo games you used as an example had a *wish* from the developers to implement these features. That wish clearly wasn't there for the Souls titles. Not to mention that's consistent with Nintendo's brand but not with the Souls games branding. 



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

That may be how you want to enjoy the game, but others might enjoy it a different way, and that takes nothing away from you. For less skilled player, a slightly easier mode would still be challenging, hence they'd still get the experience without being locked out. Existing players can keep playing it the way they always have, the devs make more sales and more money, new players get to enjoy it, it's literally a pure win with absolutely zero downside.

That is a hilarious way to see it because it takes the idea that it affects no one else whilst literally putting aside the wishes of both the developers and the community. Like I just said - at least the Nintendo games you used as an example had a *wish* from the developers to implement these features. That wish clearly wasn't there for the Souls titles. Not to mention that's consistent with Nintendo's brand but not with the Souls games branding. 

The devs and fanbase objectively do not lose a single thing by allowing other people to play as well though.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 11 December 2018

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That is a hilarious way to see it because it takes the idea that it affects no one else whilst literally putting aside the wishes of both the developers and the community. Like I just said - at least the Nintendo games you used as an example had a *wish* from the developers to implement these features. That wish clearly wasn't there for the Souls titles. Not to mention that's consistent with Nintendo's brand but not with the Souls games branding. 

The devs and fanbase objectively do not lose a single thing by allowing other people to play as well. 

Brilliant argument Curl. 



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

The devs and fanbase objectively do not lose a single thing by allowing other people to play as well. 

Brilliant argument Curl. 

Thanks. That's because it's true.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 12 December 2018

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Brilliant argument Curl. 

Thanks. That's because it's the objective truth.

There's nothing objective about how you feel when making or playing a game, so that's kind of a weird way to phrase your argument. 

I didn't say the feature shouldn't be in the game, just that the Souls games are a terrible example in the OP provided. 



Too worthless to live, too scared to die.