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

Well in Souls games, the gameworlds are linked online with the potential for your to team up with other players or be invaded by them. Keeping one difficulty across the board helps keep things balanced and fair in that online space.

If you separate easy mode from normal to keep that balance, you are then splitting the fanbase and lowering number of players available to play with.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Around the Network
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. 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.

I totally disagree. There are other ways to reduce difficulty and give the player options. The game can still be fun at lower difficulty levels. It has higher difficulty levels as NG+ and you still enjoyed it the first time around on easy mode! Some people don't care for boss battles, let them skip them or turn the difficulty down temporarily. Some people just want to explore the world without getting killed all the time, let them. Some people don't care about grinding for upgrades. I skipped most of the story mission segments in RDR2 and enjoyed the game my way. Had it forced me to keep replaying the same corridor shoot out sequences over and over I would not have enjoyed it as much.

The use of assists is always a discussion point in racing games. From purists that want to lock everyone in cockpit view without any assists to those that simply want to have fun with a controller. GT Sport manages to have it all work very well together, still there are those that want to determine who can use what.

Games are there for your enjoyment. They are not a skill test. There is no prize at the end. You do not graduate game school. Let people enjoy games the way they want. I finished God of War on easy, which was damn hard for me against the final Valkyrie boss. Game of the year for me. Freely changing difficulty on the fly reduced any frustration and kept the game fun from beginning to end.



Totally agree OP. Since I dont have time for dying and restarting levels, thats no fun to me. And the single thing keeping me away from Souls is an easy mode. I would actually play it if it ever got the feature.

There is literally no excuse of them not putting an easy mode in.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

Shiken said:
Well in Souls games, the gameworlds are linked online with the potential for your to team up with other players or be invaded by them. Keeping one difficulty across the board helps keep things balanced and fair in that online space.

If you separate easy mode from normal to keep that balance, you are then splitting the fanbase and lowering number of players available to play with.

And without the difficulty options I simply logged out of PSN every time I saw signs of an impending invasion. The game should have had an option to disable that while keeping the hints and ghosts and optional co-op. Instead I simply ignored the PSN message abuse every time I declined the dumb invasion mechanic. (The game saves when you log out of psn, then you can log back in and continue right where you left off, without annoying interruptions)



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

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. 

I'm open to other examples, I just threw in the first few I could think of that stuck in my memory; NSMB first of all cos back when that was announced, bloody hell, you'd have thought they'd announced the Super Guide was compulsory the way people flipped out. "New Mario game plays itself" was a headline on just about every big game site.



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
curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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. 

I'm open to other examples, I just threw in the first few I could think of that stuck in my memory; NSMB first of all cos back when that was announced, bloody hell, you'd have thought they'd announced the Super Guide was compulsory the way people flipped out. "New Mario game plays itself" was a headline on just about every big game site.

I have to be honest Curl and say that I find it somewhat annoying that you made a thread championing the differences in people and the different options people may want or believe in - only to be so firm in one belief and not consider any other. At least what I'm arguing is that the example of Souls games is bad, not that every game should have them or that every game shouldn't have them. I don't really see much of a point in discussing something if the opposing stance is always going to stick to such an opinion, especially one as one-dimensional as this. It's the same thing that happened in the resolution thread - I brought up multiple arguments and what I essentially got as a counter-argument was you believe what you believe. Ok ... 

As an example, saying that there's "objectively no downside" is just odd, because that does not take into account that the attachment one has to video games - including the developers themselves, is very subjective. Would there be no objective downside if Shadow of the Colossus became a first person shooter? Sony would make more money and Japan Studio would undoubtedly have their first big hit on their hands. Well in that case, there might not be an "objective downside", but there would definitely be a subjective one for anyone who liked it. And unfortunately what people don't realize is that various aspects of a game can matter as much as any other defining factor, including difficulty. 

I'm not going to say that difficulty modes shouldn't be in the Souls games. It would be my preference but I'm not going to say it. What I will say is that I don't think a difficulty select is right for every game - and that's based on a much more nuanced opinion than just everything is for everyone, or every niche game should only be for one niche crowd. 



curl-6 said:

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? 

Elitism.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

I'm open to other examples, I just threw in the first few I could think of that stuck in my memory; NSMB first of all cos back when that was announced, bloody hell, you'd have thought they'd announced the Super Guide was compulsory the way people flipped out. "New Mario game plays itself" was a headline on just about every big game site.

I have to be honest Curl and say that I find it somewhat annoying that you made a thread championing the differences in people and the different options people may want or believe in - only to be so firm in one belief and not consider any other. At least what I'm arguing is that the example of Souls games is bad, not that every game should have them or that every game shouldn't have them. I don't really see much of a point in discussing something if the opposing stance is always going to stick to such an opinion, especially one as one-dimensional as this. It's the same thing that happened in the resolution thread - I brought up multiple arguments and what I essentially got as a counter-argument was you believe what you believe. Ok ... 

As an example, saying that there's "objectively no downside" is just odd, because that does not take into account that the attachment one has to video games - including the developers themselves, is very subjective. Would there be no objective downside if Shadow of the Colossus became a first person shooter? Sony would make more money and Japan Studio would undoubtedly have their first big hit on their hands. Well in that case, there might not be an "objective downside", but there would definitely be a subjective one for anyone who liked it. And unfortunately what people don't realize is that various aspects of a game can matter as much as any other defining factor, including difficulty. 

I'm not going to say that difficulty modes shouldn't be in the Souls games. It would be my preference but I'm not going to say it. What I will say is that I don't think a difficulty select is right for every game - and that's based on a much more nuanced opinion than just everything is for everyone, or every niche game should only be for one niche crowd. 

The Shadow of the Colossus example is not analogous because in that case it's not optional.



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

Some elitists are dumb and think that will devaluate their pride and pleasure on the game. I platined GoW on Give me God of War but to people that want to experience for the first time and not sure about having much hassle I suggest they start on easy so they can please themselves.



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

Some people just don't understand that not everything is made for them, or has to be made for them.  That being said, I wish there was an option to shut these things off completely.  Whenever Rosalina would show up in Mario Galaxy 2 I would feel like I was being mocked.

 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

I'm open to other examples, I just threw in the first few I could think of that stuck in my memory; NSMB first of all cos back when that was announced, bloody hell, you'd have thought they'd announced the Super Guide was compulsory the way people flipped out. "New Mario game plays itself" was a headline on just about every big game site.

I have to be honest Curl and say that I find it somewhat annoying that you made a thread championing the differences in people and the different options people may want or believe in - only to be so firm in one belief and not consider any other. At least what I'm arguing is that the example of Souls games is bad, not that every game should have them or that every game shouldn't have them. I don't really see much of a point in discussing something if the opposing stance is always going to stick to such an opinion, especially one as one-dimensional as this. It's the same thing that happened in the resolution thread - I brought up multiple arguments and what I essentially got as a counter-argument was you believe what you believe. Ok ... 

As an example, saying that there's "objectively no downside" is just odd, because that does not take into account that the attachment one has to video games - including the developers themselves, is very subjective. Would there be no objective downside if Shadow of the Colossus became a first person shooter? Sony would make more money and Japan Studio would undoubtedly have their first big hit on their hands. Well in that case, there might not be an "objective downside", but there would definitely be a subjective one for anyone who liked it. And unfortunately what people don't realize is that various aspects of a game can matter as much as any other defining factor, including difficulty. 

I'm not going to say that difficulty modes shouldn't be in the Souls games. It would be my preference but I'm not going to say it. What I will say is that I don't think a difficulty select is right for every game - and that's based on a much more nuanced opinion than just everything is for everyone, or every niche game should only be for one niche crowd. 

If it took next to no time to develop, could be ignored completely if desired, and in no way changed the core experience, then there would be no objective downside to making an FPS mode to Shadow of the Colossus.  But, obviously that isn't possible here.  There are obvious downsides in this scenario.

To use NSMB as an example, what downside does the super block feature have (Luigi comes and does the levels for you but skipping any secrets)?