By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

The opposite is also true though.

If he experienced then the game have it. Unless you are claiming he is lying.

Unless he said everyone experience it, then you not experiencing could invalidate his point.

So you are saying that Im lying?*sigh*

That's some weak argument dude.Instead of using real arguments, you use "But his opinion is different!" approach, so to say.This is a discussion, not to check if you individually are ok with that.And you haven't presented one single evidence to back your claim.

Simply put, if he dosen't like it, the game isn't for him, and he has no right to request an easier/harder game.Simple as that.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Nautilus said:

Why is it funny?Reviews have been a thing since forever.It's made from people that dedicate their times to seeing the quality of a product so we have more information about it and make an informed purchase.I don't see how funny that is.

If the discussion was about your own personal experience about difficulties and such then yeah, reviews would hold small weight compared to your own personal opinion.But thats the point: It's not about you.We are discussing about how difficult games should remain unchanged for their games, affecting everyone.In this context, the aggregate of "official" reviews are more important, because they better represent the overall public opinion of a game.Or are you saying that your opinion alone is more important than hundreds of one to the general public, and we should just ignore them because they are trash?

Otherwise I could easily say: "I am of the opinion that hard games are the best and no easy game should exist.There, my opinion is absolute.End of discussion".And, as you should have guessed, that's not how a discussion works.

It's always funny when people try to use review scores to "prove" something. I mean, you're the one that said opinions are like assholes. Well a bunch of assholes are just as bad (probably worse in actuality) than a single asshole. Of course their weight is subjective to, so if some people want to hold them up as the holy grail then they're welcome to (they should also expect to be mocked for that though. Pretty sure there was a thread a little while ago about somebody that based all their purchasing decisions on review scores, needless to say they got mocked a bit for that.), but to me they're worth absolutely fuck all. The opinion of any random user on this site would be worth more to me than every single reviewer put together.

Besides, the whole review score angle is kind of moot anyway considering you can like something and still want more options in it, it doesn't have to be one or the other. That's even the whole point of DLC. People like something but still want more options. The lack of those options in the first place doesn't make them dislike the game (usually at least, some people do get pissed, and often rightly so, when stuff that is released later that they think could've been in the base game), and their addition later also doesn't make them dislike the game (again, usually at least. Pay to win stuff and predatory DLC practices are good ways to get people to stop liking a game).

And thats the thing: Reviews are held up in high esteem.Otherwise they wouldn't be discussed in the first place, or people wouldn't get mad at them.Why?Because people(in general) base some of their purchase decisions on them.Why? Well, nobody wants to buy something they don't like, and end up throwing their hard earned money away. Isn't it obvious? I don't understand how you can't grasp that, especially since you are not a new member.

Of course that you end up favoring someone or some other channel more, either because they explain things better or simply because their tastes align better to your own(and thus you can be more precise on whether you will like that game or not) but overall, yeah reviews are taken seriously(outside of those awful reviews, in which the reviewer clearly dosen't know what he is speaking about), and outside of extreme cases on which people base sorely on one metric to see if they will like a game, people use them to inform themselves and make a decision.Never saw anyone being mocked for that.

And finally, you touched the exact point on why your arguments are weak or flawed: You are not presenting any of them.No evidence.You are just actually presenting your own opinion, as clearly shown in your first paragraph(People being mocked because they use reviews to help them better purchase games lol).You think that all games should have more "options" because it would make more gamers buy them, and yet difficult games are selling more and more.

And what's that about DLC?That doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion.... of course people would want more of a game they like.What does that have anything to do with difficulty?

Edit: Forgot to mention that Dark Souls even kind of have an easy mode: That being the ability to let someone join your game and help you, which makes things super easy.I mean, even if the word "options" is used in the wrong way in this discussion, Dark Souls, or most hard games usually have plenty of "options" for players having difficulties to beat those odds.

Personally I hate the multiplayer, it breaks the game in my opinion, but I respect the developer option to leave it there.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

If he experienced then the game have it. Unless you are claiming he is lying.

Unless he said everyone experience it, then you not experiencing could invalidate his point.

So you are saying that Im lying?*sigh*

That's some weak argument dude.Instead of using real arguments, you use "But his opinion is different!" approach, so to say.This is a discussion, not to check if you individually are ok with that.And you haven't presented one single evidence to back your claim.

Simply put, if he dosen't like it, the game isn't for him, and he has no right to request an easier/harder game.Simple as that.

Am I allowed to request a more consistent game? :p

I do like the game, but won't ever play it again due to the frustrating parts that come with it, nor will I buy any more games from From software, simple.

@Nautilus, yep the multiplayer is kind of an easy mode. It's pretty random though and won't be available forever. It's probably a long wait by now if you need any help. I didn't like the multiplayer one bit but got stuck on many of the bosses (while breezing through the exploration parts) so had to use it anyway. There are AI npcs to help you, but every time I went to get them while not being hollow I got invaded. Annoying. I ended up logging out of psn to play in peace, but then had to log back in since the npc AIs were pretty useless and ended up getting me killed anyway.



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

So you are saying that Im lying?*sigh*

That's some weak argument dude.Instead of using real arguments, you use "But his opinion is different!" approach, so to say.This is a discussion, not to check if you individually are ok with that.And you haven't presented one single evidence to back your claim.

Simply put, if he dosen't like it, the game isn't for him, and he has no right to request an easier/harder game.Simple as that.

Am I allowed to request a more consistent game? :p

I do like the game, but won't ever play it again due to the frustrating parts that come with it, nor will I buy any more games from From software, simple.

@Nautilus, yep the multiplayer is kind of an easy mode. It's pretty random though and won't be available forever. It's probably a long wait by now if you need any help. I didn't like the multiplayer one bit but got stuck on many of the bosses (while breezing through the exploration parts) so had to use it anyway. There are AI npcs to help you, but every time I went to get them while not being hollow I got invaded. Annoying. I ended up logging out of psn to play in peace, but then had to log back in since the npc AIs were pretty useless and ended up getting me killed anyway.

I mean sure, thats completely fine.Even if I disagree with you, what you have problem with is the game balance, not the difficulty per se.One type of issue that I have with many games, including hard ones.Its a different situation and discussion.

And yeah, the multiplayer is very unbalanced and being invaded is not fun, personally.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

If he experienced then the game have it. Unless you are claiming he is lying.

Unless he said everyone experience it, then you not experiencing could invalidate his point.

So you are saying that Im lying?*sigh*

That's some weak argument dude.Instead of using real arguments, you use "But his opinion is different!" approach, so to say.This is a discussion, not to check if you individually are ok with that.And you haven't presented one single evidence to back your claim.

Simply put, if he dosen't like it, the game isn't for him, and he has no right to request an easier/harder game.Simple as that.

Nope. At most I would say you are overly defensive of the no easier mode and deny every point or opportunity pointed towards it. And although you wouldn't be lying when saying you didn't suffered the problem pointed, you can't say he didn't.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

So you are saying that Im lying?*sigh*

That's some weak argument dude.Instead of using real arguments, you use "But his opinion is different!" approach, so to say.This is a discussion, not to check if you individually are ok with that.And you haven't presented one single evidence to back your claim.

Simply put, if he dosen't like it, the game isn't for him, and he has no right to request an easier/harder game.Simple as that.

Nope. At most I would say you are overly defensive of the no easier mode and deny every point or opportunity pointed towards it. And although you wouldn't be lying when saying you didn't suffered the problem pointed, you can't say he didn't.

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope. At most I would say you are overly defensive of the no easier mode and deny every point or opportunity pointed towards it. And although you wouldn't be lying when saying you didn't suffered the problem pointed, you can't say he didn't.

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....

When you refuse to accept any counter argument you shouldn't even make a thread.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope. At most I would say you are overly defensive of the no easier mode and deny every point or opportunity pointed towards it. And although you wouldn't be lying when saying you didn't suffered the problem pointed, you can't say he didn't.

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....

The problem is, what makes a game appealing means different things to different people. What makes a game appealing to the developers could very well be very unappealing to others. And the experience of difficulty is different for different people. So what is the game really trying to achieve. To make you pass an arbitrary rather meaningless difficulty bar which for some isn't difficult at all yet will have others move on or not even try. Games are not like a driver's license test where you have to meet set performance requirements, which for some are very easy and some can never get a driver's license. So if the difficulty is what's supposed to make the game appealing, it can only be appealing to a certain subset of gamers with the right 'skill' level to match its difficulty curve. Luckily there are many more things that make the souls games appealing.



DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....

When you refuse to accept any counter argument you shouldn't even make a thread.

Oh, I do, It's just that you are not making a good case, that's all.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....

The problem is, what makes a game appealing means different things to different people. What makes a game appealing to the developers could very well be very unappealing to others. And the experience of difficulty is different for different people. So what is the game really trying to achieve. To make you pass an arbitrary rather meaningless difficulty bar which for some isn't difficult at all yet will have others move on or not even try. Games are not like a driver's license test where you have to meet set performance requirements, which for some are very easy and some can never get a driver's license. So if the difficulty is what's supposed to make the game appealing, it can only be appealing to a certain subset of gamers with the right 'skill' level to match its difficulty curve. Luckily there are many more things that make the souls games appealing.

But games shouldn't have to be appealing to everyone.That's the point.I thought I made that very clear with my Original Post.

Its impossible to make different difficulty options in a game that applies the difficulty itself in every single part imaginable of the game, from the exploration to the combat itself, with reasons explained ad nauseum at this point.So I make the question to you: Is it fair then to the people that want truly hard games, to not have them, because some people just can't get better, for one reason or another?the moment you apply the logic " It's unfair for the ones that can't play better" the opposite is also true: " Is it unfair for those who can play better, to not have a game that is TRULY hard, not the "hard" difficulty levels that games usually have(which is still easy or just normal)"?

The answer is simple:There are enough developers out there to everyone have a game that appeals to them, even on the same genre.So I can't fanthom why people are so against gamers just having the opportunity to play something that really speaks to them.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1