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

Intrinsic 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. 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. 

And they had the very lame "give me a story" difficult that even my 3 year old was able to get over 50% of the game finished already (will probably finish the game with time). Am I bothered by it since I finished on Give me God of War with extreme dedication to do it? Not at all, I love that my son that liked to see me play so much was able to enjoy it himself.



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
HoloDust said:
Hiku said:

@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.

But what I'm saying is, if there is a significantly easier mode that they end up do enjoying, then the game is for them. Or let's phrase it in another way. It's a game they enjoy. And that's the most important thing about video games.



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.

This is like saying if you can't drive a manual then dont drive at all.

If you don't take your bike for track days then you have no business riding bikes.

If you cant dance then you might as well stay at home and not go out.

Choices or options is never a bad thing. Never.

If the inclusion of a difficulty setting "breaks the experience" from a development perspective then its n the devs to get that balance right. If it breaks the experience from what can only be described as dogmatic.... then thats on you.

Make game. Give difficulty options that allows gamers tailor their experience of said game to their skill. Release game. 

 Simple.



Intrinsic 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.

This is like saying if you can't drive a manual then dont drive at all.

If you don't take your bike for track days then you have no business riding bikes.

If you cant dance then you might as well stay at home and not go out.

Choices or options is never a bad thing. Never.

If the inclusion of a difficulty setting "breaks the experience" from a development perspective then its n the devs to get that balance right. If it breaks the experience from what can only be described as dogmatic.... then thats on you.

Make game. Give difficulty options that allows gamers tailor their experience of said game to their skill. Release game. 

 Simple.

It is so funny we living in an age that people love to talk about diversity and inclusion on silly things are making someone blatantly showing their non-binary sexual orientation or including token chars on environment they don't make sense, but when it is about allowing someone to enjoy a game (be it by dub/sub a game to more languages or having lower skills required by the way of more difficult settings) some people will totally fret.



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

It's a completely pointless complaint. Giving players more options to customize the game to their preferences and skill level don't take anything away from people who like to play games on the so-called intended difficulty level. There's is not a single negative side to having more difficulty options in a game that allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to play it do so.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #15: Vocal Themes

2. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

3. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

Around the Network
Darashiva said:
It's a completely pointless complaint. Giving players more options to customize the game to their preferences and skill level don't take anything away from people who like to play games on the so-called intended difficulty level. There's is not a single negative side to having more difficulty options in a game that allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to play it do so.

At most dev may put a disclaimer in front of the difficult settings like "the way we designed the game to be played". They may even put an even harder setting for people that want it.



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

I see no reason to get upset about the idea of having difficulty options. It's just arrogant as having options doesn't mean you no longer can enjoy the game the way you want to.

For example, while I personally enjoy the difficulty in Breath of the Wild, including its durability system, I wouldn't object to options that would let you adjust enemy HP, damage, frequency of stronger enemies, the durability or an option that would *gasp* get rid of durability altogether.



I've never understood the issue with this kind of idea either, Curl, even on a game like Dark Souls.

I mean, look at Smash - the adventure mode has its difficulties listed as "Easy", "Normal (Recommended)" and "Hard". The designers designed that mode with a particular difficulty level in mind (hence calling it "recommended") but provided other options to cater to different skill levels. I'm not gonna lie, I've had to push it down from Normal to Easy on a couple of occasions. I might have had three hours to blow on a single challenge when I was 20, but not now.

Different difficulty options are pretty much never a bad thing. They don't require a lot of effort to include in a game, and they allow it to reach a wider audience. Besides, what's easy for one person isn't always for another.



Intrinsic 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.

This is like saying if you can't drive a manual then dont drive at all.

No.

He's saying that if you only driven automatics and buy a car with manual you should learn to drive with the manual transmission. It might be harder initially but as time goes you get better.



Spindel said:
Intrinsic said:

This is like saying if you can't drive a manual then dont drive at all.

No.

He's saying that if you only driven automatics and buy a car with manual you should learn to drive with the manual transmission. It might be harder initially but as time goes you get better.

Nope. Would at least be something like "don't make this car with auto option, whoever wants to buy it should learn to drive manual because reasons".



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