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

Mnementh said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

Uhhhhhhh... I've never played Dark Souls... and don't really intend to... and I have never mentioned Dark Souls.  So, again, I have no idea how this answers my question in any way.

But I guess I'll address it anyway.  Sometimes games have levels that for whatever reason are too hard.  I absolutely hated the sun level in Mario Bros 3.  So, I used a P Wing on it every time.  Then I went on to enjoy the rest of the game.  I knew how to jump, I wasn't trying to play Mario like Mega Man or something, I just didn't like and had difficulty with that part of the game.

The P Wing let you skip levels.  Nowadays there are other ways to skip levels implemented in games.  And people for some reason have a problem with it.  You don't have to use a P-Wing or Funky Kong or whatever.  It's an option that makes the game better for some people, like my 6 year old self.  And I don't understand how such features would in any way make the game less enjoyable for anyone else.  



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.

There are ways around this though. I dont think there is any justification for agame not having difficulty settings And this is coming from someone that selects the hard difficulty on every game I play.

Just award a trophy for finishing the game n the hard difficulty. Maybe even throw in a special ending there too. This way those wanting to experience a game as intended can and those wanting an easier playthrough can also play too. Everyone wins.

Take GOW for instance. One of the hardest games to play on Give me God of war (hardest) difficulty and they also made it so that its the one difficulty you can't change mid game. Didn't stop millions from loving the game. 



Not sure why really, when it won't affect them at all. I think I used to feel this way, and I suppose my reasoning for hating it was it takes away the satisfaction of clearing challenges by earning it, rather than breezing through it with easier modes or a sort of helpful item.

I came to accept that some people just want to experience the story of whatever game they're playing, and if they want to skip through parts they struggle, well that's fine. As long as they get to enjoy the game.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4_auMe1HsY&ab_channel=videogamedunkey



Without reading a single reply in this thread:

Because one gameplay mechanic is difficulty and figuring out how to overcome obstacles is the point.

If you want to take that away you should just go watch a movie instead.

I know this seems like gate keeping and sounds elitist but I claim it's not. If you don't want the challange, when the challange is the point of the activity, you should go do something else. Every activity isn't for everyone.



Around the Network

Sorry Curl, but no. I'm actually fairly against difficulty levels, if anything they more often than not break the experience.
Not every game is for everyone, in some things you're good, in some you're just not.
If anything, more games should be like Souls (and most much older games, while we're at it) and have only one diificulty (or at worst very, very narrow leeway) and it's up to player to either figure it out, or look for another game that suits it needs and skills.

I'll give you an example from similar hobby, boardgames - I mostly like to play so called Euro-games (it has nothing to do these days with country of origin), but mostly of medium weight, medium-hard at most (that being 3.5 out of 5 complexity on Board Game Geek). anything above that is no go zone for me...at least at the present time. There are some amazing games that are more complex, I just don't want to play them, either cause I don't have time, patience or both. But never have I thought that any of them need an easy mode, nor any of them actually have it. Why? Balancing of mechanisms - if anything, if there is lighter version, it's usually completely different game, often by different designer, that resembles its heavier counterpart, but aimed at wider market.

Which brings me to the very point - most video games these days are made for mass market, and they will have wide diificulty level scale because publishers want to sell as many copies as possible. But luckily, there are still games and developers that do not aim for mass market (although some of them do become popular) that do not want to sacrifirce fine balance of underlying mechanisms and then it's up to each person to decide if that game is for them or not.



Because they're jealous since they didn't have those when they were growing up in "arcades" and lost money on intentionally badly designed games to extort money.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SvennoJ said:

 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.

Do you mean that you started off on a higher difficulty in God of War, but lowered it to an easier one at times?

HoloDust said: 
Sorry Curl, but no. I'm actually fairly against difficulty levels, if anything they more often than not break the experience.
Not every game is for everyone, in some things you're good, in some you're just not.
If anything, more games should be like Souls (and most much older games, while we're at it) and have only one diificulty (or at worst very, very narrow leeway) and it's up to player to either figure it out, or look for another game that suits it needs and skills.

I'll give you an example from similar hobby, boardgames - I mostly like to play so called Euro-games (it has nothing to do these days with country of origin), but mostly of medium weight, medium-hard at most (that being 3.5 out of 5 complexity on Board Game Geek). anything above that is no go zone for me...at least at the present time. There are some amazing games that are more complex, I just don't want to play them, either cause I don't have time, patience or both. But never have I thought that any of them need an easy mode, nor any of them actually have it. Why? Balancing of mechanisms - if anything, if there is lighter version, it's usually completely different game, often by different designer, that resembles its heavier counterpart, but aimed at wider market.

Which brings me to the very point - most video games these days are made for mass market, and they will have wide diificulty level scale because publishers want to sell as many copies as possible. But luckily, there are still games and developers that do not aim for mass market (although some of them do become popular) that do not want to sacrifirce fine balance of underlying mechanisms and then it's up to each person to decide if that game is for them or not.

@HoloDust
What you said with the examples you gave makes sense for you. But why do you think people who would enjoy a different and easier experience should just not play the game at all? If the alternative is that they are so discouraged by the original difficulty that they won't play much of the game, isn't it better to let them have another option that they may enjoy? (Even if you or I don't enjoy that easier experience.)

Last edited by Hiku - on 12 December 2018

Hiku said:
HoloDust said: 
Sorry Curl, but no. I'm actually fairly against difficulty levels, if anything they more often than not break the experience.
Not every game is for everyone, in some things you're good, in some you're just not.
If anything, more games should be like Souls (and most much older games, while we're at it) and have only one diificulty (or at worst very, very narrow leeway) and it's up to player to either figure it out, or look for another game that suits it needs and skills.

I'll give you an example from similar hobby, boardgames - I mostly like to play so called Euro-games (it has nothing to do these days with country of origin), but mostly of medium weight, medium-hard at most (that being 3.5 out of 5 complexity on Board Game Geek). anything above that is no go zone for me...at least at the present time. There are some amazing games that are more complex, I just don't want to play them, either cause I don't have time, patience or both. But never have I thought that any of them need an easy mode, nor any of them actually have it. Why? Balancing of mechanisms - if anything, if there is lighter version, it's usually completely different game, often by different designer, that resembles its heavier counterpart, but aimed at wider market.

Which brings me to the very point - most video games these days are made for mass market, and they will have wide diificulty level scale because publishers want to sell as many copies as possible. But luckily, there are still games and developers that do not aim for mass market (although some of them do become popular) that do not want to sacrifirce fine balance of underlying mechanisms and then it's up to each person to decide if that game is for them or not.

@HoloDust
What you said with the examples you gave makes sense for you. But why do you think people who would enjoy a different and easier experience should just not play the game at all? If the alternative is that they are so discouraged by the original difficulty that they won't play much of the game, isn't it better to let them have another option that they may enjoy? (Even if you or I don't enjoy that easier experience.)

I'm not completely against some sort of difficulty scaling in all games, it's just that I think if there must be some, it should be much, much narrower scale - cause, from my experience at least, wide difficulty scaling inevitably breaks the balancing. So, to answer your question, if game indeed has narrow difficulty scaling (so there is only slightly easier option) and if even then one is not able to  manage it, then that game is simply not for them - and there's nothing wrong with it, there are plenty of games out there.

What I'm completey against is all sort of player aids, especially in RPGs - there almost nothing more game breaking in modern AAA "RPGs" than all sort of handholding devs are putting into them. Again, consequence of what is essentially niche genre going mass market and publishers wanting more sales, thus more audience from outside of core genre.



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'.

You say you can't hear it anymore, so what are you doing here?



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