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

Is obnoxous to compare having an easy mode in a game to changing the core mechanic of game and saying they are basically the same on not losing objectively.



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

Around the Network

Never a bad thing to have more options.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

And why I didn't mention the sort of thing you're talking about either, because what you're talking about isn't optional assists, but optional handicaps, the total opposite.

But that was just an example. I made actual points for why the Souls games are a bad example. Other than just "muh objective advantage". 

I have yet to see a convincing reason why an optional assist is a bad thing though. Those who don't like them are entirely free to carry on as if they don't exist. They only people they really affect as those they affect positively by allowing them to play games they otherwise would be locked out of.

Now if it was non-optional, then there would be a problem, as it would compromise the experience for those who don't need/want them. 

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.

SvennoJ said:

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.

You outlined a comparison between NG+ and regular difficulty in the Souls games while simultaneously missing what makes them different even though you just explained it to yourself. Do you want to know the difference between NG+ and the ability to choose a difficulty mode in the beginning of the game? Well ... you should already know, it's right there for you to see!

That's one of many great things about the Souls games - you start with one difficulty mode. Everything in the game is specifically designed to be very deliberate. The game's difficulty does not change based on some stupid labels you see at the start of the game. It changes based on how the designers meticulously crafted enemies, how they put a level together, and how the world is connected. 

All I can say is that your point ultimately fails because it caters to the idea that every piece of media is for everybody. It isn't. I don't go to racing games so I can play the game as an on-rails shooter. I don't go to Smash Brothers to play Mario Kart. I don't go to Blade Runner to see a lightsaber duel. And unfortunately what people can't accept is that difficulty can be as much a deciding factor on how a game is crafted or how the product ultimately turns out as the genre itself. You see this in games of various quality. Shitty flash games are often made to be obsessively difficult, but that's their main gimmick and no one would play them if that gimmick didn't exist. Now Souls games are a bit different because they have more to offer than being hard, but the fact is that being difficult is a very core component to the feeling of fun and accomplishment that the games provide.

For example, in your last paragraph you say: 

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.

I can't help but feel this is very disingenuous, because it isn't in line with the enjoyment of entertainment as a whole. Entertainment by it's very nature is getting something out of something that holds no real objective value. Just because you don't graduate from school for finishing Dark Souls doesn't mean that feeling of accomplishment can't exist. Just because an option doesn't affect certain people doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the game's point. In fact it's not even a good argument when used by your own standards. If games have no real importance, then why even go to the lengths of buying a game you know you probably won't enjoy? And if they aren't important than what's the point of arguing about whether there should be a difficulty mode on an obscure gaming forum? Of course you didn't say that games aren't important - but you did make a comparison to objective benchmarks that somehow trivialize those of video games. Even though that would fly in the face of the point of entertainment as a whole.

Souls games are mostly about learning. And one of those methods of teaching in a Souls game is the difficulty. If you don't want to learn the game, then why play it? Because that's the thing about most easy modes. They are mostly there so that players don't have to learn anything about the game. People act like difficulty isn't a mechanic of a game, but of course it is. It has as much importance as any other - and that is proved by both people who dislike the difficulty in a game or by those who like it. 

I've seen your posts around this forum and honestly I don't think the Souls games are for your demographic. Most people who get into them have a lot of free time on their hands. Most people who get into them like a challenge. That doesn't mean they should change, it just means it isn't for you. And that's fine. 

Anyways, this is my last post in this thread. I don't want to keep repeating what I've repeated a million times before. Other people are free to disagree or talk. It is obnoxious for me to take up most of the thread. Plus I just remembered that I think one of my first moderations had to do with difficulty in games. So yeah ... not going to get trapped into that again  



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

JWeinCom said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That's exactly my point ... yet by the way you worded it it seems like you missed that? There is no way that making something more accessible has an "objective" downside, but obviously when entertainment is concerned there are very obvious subjective downsides. 

I have't played NSMBU much. I did play the Wii one a bit. Didn't like it at the time. What I can say is that an easy mode or player assist works very well for a Mario game. It is after all, a Mario game. So I'm not going to argue for or against that feature. 

So, let's get ride of the word objective.  What downside is there to an optional assist mode.  Assuming the game is otherwise well made and balanced, why should this in any way make anyone enjoy the game less?

Gameplay. It is always about gameplay. This thread is a veiled thread about Souls, because be real, no one really makes a fuss about anything else. You can't tell me there is serious outrage about something like Funky Kong in Tropical Freeze. There might be a few here and there, but no real thing. So the one game series it boils down to is Souls. And here is the thing: it is not about difficulty, it is about gameplay. Many people, the majority, wants fast gameplay, they react fast and snippy to stuff. If you try that in Souls it gets you killed. Because it has a different gameplay. Which is okay. There is a group of people - much smaller - who enjoys this slower gameplay. But some people of the first group think it is a game for them. They go in expecting that, and it doesn't work.

I can't hear anymore about the difficulty of Souls, because it really isn't. Most games that praise themself as hard as a Souls game are in reality much harder. Souls gets easy - if you played it how it was designed. Now adding more HP or giving your attack more power would make the game easier (and I don't think anyone actually is against that), but it wouldn't solve the problem of the complainers. Because still running in guns blazing would get you killed.

So I can't hear anymore about that easy mode for Souls, because in reality people want to say: I want Dark Souls, but it must be a different game. I wish From Software would add an actual easy mode - cheaper progression would do the trick quite easily - so that the complainers are finally shut up. Because they would still hate the game but hadn't any way anymore to propose 'a fix'.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
Mnementh said:

So I can't hear anymore about that easy mode for Souls, because in reality people want to say: I want Dark Souls, but it must be a different game. I wish From Software would add an actual easy mode - cheaper progression would do the trick quite easily - so that the complainers are finally shut up. Because they would still hate the game but hadn't any way anymore to propose 'a fix'.

Lol, so much this.



Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

Mnementh said:
JWeinCom said:

So, let's get ride of the word objective.  What downside is there to an optional assist mode.  Assuming the game is otherwise well made and balanced, why should this in any way make anyone enjoy the game less?

Gameplay. It is always about gameplay. This thread is a veiled thread about Souls, because be real, no one really makes a fuss about anything else. You can't tell me there is serious outrage about something like Funky Kong in Tropical Freeze. There might be a few here and there, but no real thing. So the one game series it boils down to is Souls. And here is the thing: it is not about difficulty, it is about gameplay. Many people, the majority, wants fast gameplay, they react fast and snippy to stuff. If you try that in Souls it gets you killed. Because it has a different gameplay. Which is okay. There is a group of people - much smaller - who enjoys this slower gameplay. But some people of the first group think it is a game for them. They go in expecting that, and it doesn't work.

I can't hear anymore about the difficulty of Souls, because it really isn't. Most games that praise themself as hard as a Souls game are in reality much harder. Souls gets easy - if you played it how it was designed. Now adding more HP or giving your attack more power would make the game easier (and I don't think anyone actually is against that), but it wouldn't solve the problem of the complainers. Because still running in guns blazing would get you killed.

So I can't hear anymore about that easy mode for Souls, because in reality people want to say: I want Dark Souls, but it must be a different game. I wish From Software would add an actual easy mode - cheaper progression would do the trick quite easily - so that the complainers are finally shut up. Because they would still hate the game but hadn't any way anymore to propose 'a fix'.

Uhhhh... ok... but that really didn't answer my question in the least.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

You outlined a comparison between NG+ and regular difficulty in the Souls games while simultaneously missing what makes them different even though you just explained it to yourself. Do you want to know the difference between NG+ and the ability to choose a difficulty mode in the beginning of the game? Well ... you should already know, it's right there for you to see!

That's one of many great things about the Souls games - you start with one difficulty mode. Everything in the game is specifically designed to be very deliberate. The game's difficulty does not change based on some stupid labels you see at the start of the game. It changes based on how the designers meticulously crafted enemies, how they put a level together, and how the world is connected. 

All I can say is that your point ultimately fails because it caters to the idea that every piece of media is for everybody. It isn't. I don't go to racing games so I can play the game as an on-rails shooter. I don't go to Smash Brothers to play Mario Kart. I don't go to Blade Runner to see a lightsaber duel. And unfortunately what people can't accept is that difficulty can be as much a deciding factor on how a game is crafted or how the product ultimately turns out as the genre itself. You see this in games of various quality. Shitty flash games are often made to be obsessively difficult, but that's their main gimmick and no one would play them if that gimmick didn't exist. Now Souls games are a bit different because they have more to offer than being hard, but the fact is that being difficult is a very core component to the feeling of fun and accomplishment that the games provide.

For example, in your last paragraph you say: 

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.

I can't help but feel this is very disingenuous, because it isn't in line with the enjoyment of entertainment as a whole. Entertainment by it's very nature is getting something out of something that holds no real objective value. Just because you don't graduate from school for finishing Dark Souls doesn't mean that feeling of accomplishment can't exist. Just because an option doesn't affect certain people doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the game's point. In fact it's not even a good argument when used by your own standards. If games have no real importance, then why even go to the lengths of buying a game you know you probably won't enjoy? And if they aren't important than what's the point of arguing about whether there should be a difficulty mode on an obscure gaming forum? Of course you didn't say that games aren't important - but you did make a comparison to objective benchmarks that somehow trivialize those of video games. Even though that would fly in the face of the point of entertainment as a whole.

Souls games are mostly about learning. And one of those methods of teaching in a Souls game is the difficulty. If you don't want to learn the game, then why play it? Because that's the thing about most easy modes. They are mostly there so that players don't have to learn anything about the game. People act like difficulty isn't a mechanic of a game, but of course it is. It has as much importance as any other - and that is proved by both people who dislike the difficulty in a game or by those who like it. 

I've seen your posts around this forum and honestly I don't think the Souls games are for your demographic. Most people who get into them have a lot of free time on their hands. Most people who get into them like a challenge. That doesn't mean they should change, it just means it isn't for you. And that's fine. 

Anyways, this is my last post in this thread. I don't want to keep repeating what I've repeated a million times before. Other people are free to disagree or talk. It is obnoxious for me to take up most of the thread. Plus I just remembered that I think one of my first moderations had to do with difficulty in games. So yeah ... not going to get trapped into that again  

And yet the game changes completely with a bit of input from the internet, which is what I resorted to after giving up 20 hours in. I started over having leveled up my character ina completely useless manner and missed the point entirely of the importance of upgrading weapons. Yes, the game was very easy with the master key and nabbing a good sword at the beginning putting me on a curve ahead of the difficulty curve I experienced the first time. Without that 'easy' mode I would not have continued with the game and it would not have been in my top 10 games of all time.



I mean, even with Starfox Zero, a game hardly anyone gave a toss about in the first place, the announcement of an invincible mode made headlines on IGN/Eurogamer/etc and brought on loads of angry comments across the net. And again, that's with a game of almost Zero (har har) importance.



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

JWeinCom said:
Mnementh said:

Gameplay. It is always about gameplay. This thread is a veiled thread about Souls, because be real, no one really makes a fuss about anything else. You can't tell me there is serious outrage about something like Funky Kong in Tropical Freeze. There might be a few here and there, but no real thing. So the one game series it boils down to is Souls. And here is the thing: it is not about difficulty, it is about gameplay. Many people, the majority, wants fast gameplay, they react fast and snippy to stuff. If you try that in Souls it gets you killed. Because it has a different gameplay. Which is okay. There is a group of people - much smaller - who enjoys this slower gameplay. But some people of the first group think it is a game for them. They go in expecting that, and it doesn't work.

I can't hear anymore about the difficulty of Souls, because it really isn't. Most games that praise themself as hard as a Souls game are in reality much harder. Souls gets easy - if you played it how it was designed. Now adding more HP or giving your attack more power would make the game easier (and I don't think anyone actually is against that), but it wouldn't solve the problem of the complainers. Because still running in guns blazing would get you killed.

So I can't hear anymore about that easy mode for Souls, because in reality people want to say: I want Dark Souls, but it must be a different game. I wish From Software would add an actual easy mode - cheaper progression would do the trick quite easily - so that the complainers are finally shut up. Because they would still hate the game but hadn't any way anymore to propose 'a fix'.

Uhhhh... ok... but that really didn't answer my question in the least.

I answered that I have no problem with an easy mode in Dark Souls, it just doesn't solve your problem.

Say, you play Mario, but you never jump. You constantly fall into the first pit and die. So you demand an easy mode. Nintendo hears you and let's say give Mario invulnerability against enemies or so. You play the patched game with high hopes, but you still don't jump and so you fall into the first pit and die.

People these days have reduced their gaming options of few gameplay variants. I have played games for more than 25 years and seen a lot of gameplay ideas. These days on the typical consoles we have mostly shooters, action games, some action RPGs and Sports. Puzzlers or turn-based RPGs are already awful niche. Now comes the Switch and has a lot of games which are metroidvanias, platformers or strategy. And people accustomed to the other consoles say: Switch has no games. Because they don't even recognize the different gameplays. Same with Dark Souls. People expect it to play like say God of War, Darksiders or Zelda. And going in with that expectation they aren't seeing that the gameplay is actually different. So it is like playing Mario without jumping: they will fail. But instead of recognizing the different gameplay, they think the game is hard and demand an easy mode. Only it will solve nothing. They still won't jump. because they aren't recognizing a different gameplay if they see it. And yeah, all the git gud stuff - it means play the game like it is intended instead of playing a different game, while having the Dark Souls disk inserted.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter