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

curl-6 said:

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.

I actually don't believe there was much of an outcry. I for one completely missed it. Yes, gaming media probably made a thing out of it, for easy clicks, but were there in real many people upset about it?



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:
curl-6 said:

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.

I actually don't believe there was much of an outcry. I for one completely missed it. Yes, gaming media probably made a thing out of it, for easy clicks, but were there in real many people upset about it?

Thankfully the majority were cool with it, but there was still quite a lot of complaints in various forums and comments sections. It helped that the game itself wasn't a major release and that thanks to 7 years of Super Guide a lot of the people who were so against it had gotten it out of their system and come to grudgingly accept this sort of thing.

Still there was a lot of stuff like:

"I don't know why games should be made that autoplay themselves. Whats the point? Are people really that incapable of any sort of difficulty? So what if a player struggles. It's the only way they'll get good."

 

"New gamers are getting catered way too much"

 

"Giving every scrub a chance to blast through the game is bad game designing"

 

"Remember when games (especially Nintendo games) were challenging and didn't hold your hand because they assumed you were either a kid or a complete n00b? Remember when even the simplest of games actually required skill to beat or get good at?

Because things like this kinda make me miss those days. Much like the EXP Share and White Tanooki Suit before it, this "Invincible Arwing" looks like another attempt by Nintendo at casualizing their games to appeal to kids and casuals by removing any sort of skill and holding their hands all the way through. Seriously, with features like these, what's the point of even playing the game in the first place?"

 

"Urgh, at least turn the Arwing into a toy and have it shoot water instead of lasers, having the bosses call you out on it and just fly away in disgust when encountered with this mode on would also be a nice touch.

You know make it blatantly clear that the player sucks and is having his hand held through it."



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

Literally all the concerns there are to souls being messed up if an easy mode happens, are gone if you can keep the easy mode totally offline with no online functionality. Easy.

Especially since the type of people who would like an easy mode also wouldn't like invaders in the first place.




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.

As long as it's optional, I don't really see a reason to care. More difficulty options means the game gets to be played by more people, is more likely to have sequels (provided its well-made in the first place), and most important, more fanart! I rarely use Easy mode settings myself, but options are just that...options.

Of course, it's true some games are built around the difficulty...again I don't really care if people want to play those games that way...I just hope they leave with the knowledge that their experience isn't necessarily indicative of how the game was designed to be played.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

curl-6 said:
Mnementh said:

I actually don't believe there was much of an outcry. I for one completely missed it. Yes, gaming media probably made a thing out of it, for easy clicks, but were there in real many people upset about it?

Thankfully the majority were cool with it, but there was still quite a lot of complaints in various forums and comments sections. It helped that the game itself wasn't a major release and that thanks to 7 years of Super Guide a lot of the people who were so against it had gotten it out of their system and come to grudgingly accept this sort of thing.

Still there was a lot of stuff like:

"I don't know why games should be made that autoplay themselves. Whats the point? Are people really that incapable of any sort of difficulty? So what if a player struggles. It's the only way they'll get good."

 

"New gamers are getting catered way too much"

 

Giving every scrub a chance to blast through the game is bad game designing"

 

"Remember when games (especially Nintendo games) were challenging and didn't hold your hand because they assumed you were either a kid or a complete n00b? Remember when even the simplest of games actually required skill to beat or get good at?

 

Because things like this kinda make me miss those days. Much like the EXP Share and White Tanooki Suit before it, this "Invincible Arwing" looks like another attempt by Nintendo at casualizing their games to appeal to kids and casuals by removing any sort of skill and holding their hands all the way through. Seriously, with features like these, what's the point of even playing the game in the first place?"

 

"Urgh, at least turn the Arwing into a toy and have it shoot water instead of lasers, having the bosses call you out on it and just fly away in disgust when encountered with this mode on would also be a nice touch.

You know make it blatantly clear that the player sucks and is having his hand held through it."

 

"I don't know why games should be made that autoplay themselves. Whats the point? Are people really that incapable of any sort of difficulty? So what if a player struggles. It's the only way they'll get good."

 

"New gamers are getting catered way too much"

 

Giving every scrub a chance to blast through the game is bad game designing"

Sooo, some people complain. Some people always complain. Is it major? I don't think so.

There is one example that is especially striking. Zelda Breath of the Wild is probably the most difficult Zelda in years. I die more often in BOTW than Souls. Did people demand an easy mode? No, on the contrary they applauded the introduction of Master Mode, a option with even HIGHER difficulty. So why not as with Souls games people did ask again and again for an easy mode? Because in difference to Souls game everyone knew how to play Zelda, it was a gameplay they expected.



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:
curl-6 said:

Thankfully the majority were cool with it, but there was still quite a lot of complaints in various forums and comments sections. It helped that the game itself wasn't a major release and that thanks to 7 years of Super Guide a lot of the people who were so against it had gotten it out of their system and come to grudgingly accept this sort of thing.

Still there was a lot of stuff like:

"I don't know why games should be made that autoplay themselves. Whats the point? Are people really that incapable of any sort of difficulty? So what if a player struggles. It's the only way they'll get good."

 

"New gamers are getting catered way too much"

 

Giving every scrub a chance to blast through the game is bad game designing"

 

"Remember when games (especially Nintendo games) were challenging and didn't hold your hand because they assumed you were either a kid or a complete n00b? Remember when even the simplest of games actually required skill to beat or get good at?

 

Because things like this kinda make me miss those days. Much like the EXP Share and White Tanooki Suit before it, this "Invincible Arwing" looks like another attempt by Nintendo at casualizing their games to appeal to kids and casuals by removing any sort of skill and holding their hands all the way through. Seriously, with features like these, what's the point of even playing the game in the first place?"

 

"Urgh, at least turn the Arwing into a toy and have it shoot water instead of lasers, having the bosses call you out on it and just fly away in disgust when encountered with this mode on would also be a nice touch.

You know make it blatantly clear that the player sucks and is having his hand held through it."

 

"I don't know why games should be made that autoplay themselves. Whats the point? Are people really that incapable of any sort of difficulty? So what if a player struggles. It's the only way they'll get good."

 

"New gamers are getting catered way too much"

 

Giving every scrub a chance to blast through the game is bad game designing"

Sooo, some people complain. Some people always complain. Is it major? I don't think so.

There is one example that is especially striking. Zelda Breath of the Wild is probably the most difficult Zelda in years. I die more often in BOTW than Souls. Did people demand an easy mode? No, on the contrary they applauded the introduction of Master Mode, a option with even HIGHER difficulty. So why not as with Souls games people did ask again and again for an easy mode? Because in difference to Souls game everyone knew how to play Zelda, it was a gameplay they expected.

Well, if Nintendo announced tomorrow there would be a new easy mode added to BOTW, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wouldn't use it myself, but if it helps someone else get into it, I don't see the harm.



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:
Mnementh said:

Sooo, some people complain. Some people always complain. Is it major? I don't think so.

There is one example that is especially striking. Zelda Breath of the Wild is probably the most difficult Zelda in years. I die more often in BOTW than Souls. Did people demand an easy mode? No, on the contrary they applauded the introduction of Master Mode, a option with even HIGHER difficulty. So why not as with Souls games people did ask again and again for an easy mode? Because in difference to Souls game everyone knew how to play Zelda, it was a gameplay they expected.

Well, if Nintendo announced tomorrow there would be a new easy mode added to BOTW, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wouldn't use it myself, but if it helps someone else get into it, I don't see the harm.

Yeah, but that is not my point. Why nobody think about masking an easy mode for Zelda in the first place, while it is common for Souls?

Oh, I think of another example. With emulation - you know like Virtual Console and Sega Genesis Collection - games get added save states, which certainly make things easier. But nobody complains about it (yeah, as with Star Fox Zero, probably a few people complain). your whole thread seems to generalize the Souls situation, which isn't at all something usual. And then the thread fails to recognize whats so different about Souls. That it isn't about difficulty at all, but about gameplay.



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

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
SvennoJ said:

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  

As for your second point (I'm racing in between, got a few minutes between sport races)

People have different abilities, different reaction times, which also slow down with age. A fixed difficulty level ignores all that. Difficulty can be changed in many ways. Timing windows can be more generous instead of more health. Check points can be more generous. Information and tips can be more forth coming instead of reaching for a wiki.

you say Souls games are mostly about learning. Yet every education system has levels. The starting point should be configurable. I did complete Dark Souls aboput 2.5 times. I quit on NG++ when getting to Ornstein and Smough again, couldn't bear doing that again. I would have continued on if I could skip that fight. Dark souls 2 was a lot easier thanks to knowing the systems already plus it allowed you to repeat areas to get ahead and I finished that game very overpowered. I was dying tons at the start though, hence I resorted to leveling up magic to have a more enjoyable time for the rest of the game. In essence, the early difficulty spike lessened the later part of the game. Balance is key and being able to change difficulty on the fly is the best imo. I changed it up and down a lot during GoW.



Mnementh said:
curl-6 said:

Well, if Nintendo announced tomorrow there would be a new easy mode added to BOTW, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wouldn't use it myself, but if it helps someone else get into it, I don't see the harm.

Yeah, but that is not my point. Why nobody think about masking an easy mode for Zelda in the first place, while it is common for Souls?

Oh, I think of another example. With emulation - you know like Virtual Console and Sega Genesis Collection - games get added save states, which certainly make things easier. But nobody complains about it (yeah, as with Star Fox Zero, probably a few people complain). your whole thread seems to generalize the Souls situation, which isn't at all something usual. And then the thread fails to recognize whats so different about Souls. That it isn't about difficulty at all, but about gameplay.

You're making it all about Souls which it really isn't. It's about the general negative responses that seem to happen whenever there's even the suggestion that options be made available to help less able players enjoy a game.



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

I'm with Curl on this. There just isn't a good reason for any gamer to dislike optional assists in games (when doing so does not affect other players' ability to play the game without these assists).